Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new initiatives he plans to curtail nuclear weapons proliferation.

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent progress in multilateral disarmament.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): The greatest immediate risk of proliferation stems from the break-up of the Soviet Union. I announced last week assistance to Russia in the safe reduction of its surplus nuclear warheads, and we are considering with other interested countries how best to help Russia use the skills of its scientists for peaceful purposes. We are also considering with partners measures to improve the operation of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguard regimes. As regards multilateral disarmament, the Government are fully committed to the greatest progress in the whole range of nuclear conventional, chemical and biological arms control negotiations.

Mr. Flynn: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that five months before the Gulf war, the Government told me that they had full confidence that Saddam Hussein was not developing nuclear weapons? If they are being fooled now by many other countries, is it not right that we must seek a strong, new, international non-proliferation treaty containing vigorous verification provisions backed by United Nations sanctions? Would not the best way to ensure that such a treaty would be accepted worldwide be for us to allow international inspection and verification of the numbers of our warheads?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are now engaged with the United Nations in the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The world has learnt the lessons from that, of the need for a more effective operation and for more intrusive inspections by the IAEA. I can certainly confirm on behalf of the Government that we shall take any sensible steps that are necessary, consistent with our security, to play our part in that effort.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was only by a consistent and credible policy of multilateral disarmament that the collapse of communism was eventually assured?

Mr. King: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital at this time, when there is the greatest risk of proliferation that the world has ever known and when the world's greatest nuclear power is in a state of disintegration, that we ensure that while we take every positive and constructive step to try to deal with that very grave situation, we recognise the need to maintain our essential safeguard, our own nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State referred to help being given to Russian scientists. In precisely what form is that help being given?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the statements made by US Secretary Jim Baker and German Foreign Minister Genscher. We are in close touch with our allies on this matter to see the ways by which assistance can perhaps be given, and contracts can be placed, for valuable work to be done which would occupy such scientists, in addition to the part that they might also play more directly in some of the work involved in the dismantling and disabling programme of that massive nuclear arsenal.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he feels about the accuracy of the continued Russian accounting for nuclear warheads? Has he considered whether the western powers should purchase some of those warheads to prevent them from falling into the hands of non-nuclear powers that have no idea how to maintain or destroy them?

Mr. King: It would be fair to say that our impression so far is that the previous Soviet systems were, in many ways, impressive and that the Soviet Union had good controls over its nuclear weapons. Our concern now is how good those controls remain, given that the situation is moving from union controlf—the Soviet Union—to control by individual republics. Four republics now have strategic nuclear weapons, although tactical nuclear weapons have been withdrawn within Russia. Our worries about the continuing control, however, are real, which is why we are making as positive a contribution as we can to help tackle that problem urgently.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State impress on the Prime Minister the need to raise with Mr. Yeltsin the substance of the conversation that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I had last Tuesday with Mr. Bikov of the Russian Academy of Science? Mr. Bikov said that on those secret sites, nuclear weapons were still being built. He said that, despite the fact that representatives of the Russian Parliament did not want them to be built and decisions had been taken for them not to be built, they were still being built because of the nature of the command economy that is being phased out. Was not that an important statement for Mr. Bikov to have made to us? Will the Secretary of State assure us that the matter will be raised with representatives of the Russian Government?

Mr. King: Allegations of many kinds have been made about that matter and certain aspects of the command economy. While stocks in the form of raw materials last —I am not talking about nuclear weapons but general armaments—the production will clearly continue. The successor republics of the Soviet Union regard general armaments such as tanks and artillery as a valuable source of hard currency for their hard-pressed economies. The


information that the hon. Gentleman has, has not been confirmed to me, except in certain minor respects, but it is a serious issue with which we continue to deal.

Royal Auxiliary Air Force

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he is making towards restoring a flying role for squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): There are no plans to restore a flying role to squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the Royal Air Force is the only one of the three western air forces with significant operational experience since world war two—the other two are the Israeli and the United States air forces—not to have combat-ready reserve squadrons? A flying role for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force would be exceedingly cost effective, particularly as air crews are being made redundant under "Options for Change". It is a marked distinction of the sensible policy of the Territorial Army and the Royal Naval Reserve in that matter.

Mr. Hamilton: We are considering whether a small number of test air crews from industry in the Royal Air Force Voluntary Reserve should be used as front-line reinforcements for fast jet aircraft. We are talking about costs and, as my hon. Friend will know, the cost of maintaining any aircraft, whether in the Royal Air Force or the reserves, is great, and I do not know how cost effective it would be.

Mr. Rogers: In the early stages of "Options for Change" the Secretary of State said that he would put more resources and emphasis on the development and re-equipping of the reserve forces. How many extra resources have been put into the reserve forces since the beginning of "Options for Change"? Would he agree to support a review of the Reserve Forces Safeguard of Employment Act 1985 so that we shall not have in the future the rash of litigation that has been needed against employers who have declined to accept reservists back since the Gulf war?

Mr. Hamilton: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is anticipating what my right hon. Friend will say on the matter. My right hon. Friend will shortly make a statement on the regular-reserve mix.

Sir Hector Monro: While declaring an interest and reluctantly accepting what my right hon. Friend says about flying squadrons, may I ask him to confirm that there is a good future for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in view of its exceptional record and its cost effectiveness as a reserve force?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. As my hon. Friend will know and as hon. Members will hardly need to be reminded, a large number of roles are currently carried out by the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Those roles are valuable and we intend to build on them.

"Options for Change"

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on "Options for Change".

Mr. Tom King: The "Options for Change" exercise was completed in July 1990. Since then, we have been concerned with implementing proposals to create the structure for "Britain's Defence for the '90s". The House is aware of a number of recent announcements, particularly for new equipment, to ensure that our forces, though smaller, will be more flexible, more mobile and better equipped than ever before.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Government's inaction on this matter has resulted in "Options for Change" being a shambles? There has been no positive action to give hope to those communities and workers involved with the defence industry. The Government have failed to take the opportunities before them. Will we have to wait for a Labour Government before positive action is taken? [Interruption.]

Mr. King: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, I do not usually have by breath taken away. But for the hon. Member to make such a statement, particularly today when, if I catch your eye, I shall make a statement about equipment procurement for our forces, leaves me breathless. I have made statements from the Dispatch Box announcing new tanks, new helicopters, new frigates, and new packages for the air force, our amphibious forces and our commandos. We have made our policies absolutely clear, not just by asserting that we have it in mind to take action, but by stating what we have planned and by making announcements for new equipment and new forces. I also hope to have something more to say on the reserves, which is an important development. For the hon. Gentleman to have the nerve to ask such a question when he was undoubtedly one of those who voted successively for large cuts in our defence expenditure, is mind-boggling.

Sir Jim Spicer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that our infantry is second to none in the world. Does he also agree that a large part of the excellence stems from the fact that its members have the right training from day one, when they join the armed forces? Will he make certain that, in no circumstances, will there be an mismatch in terms of that basic training? Will he ensure that any suggestion of parachute recruits going to Lichfield to train with Royal Army Medical Corps recruits of both genders would be ruled out of court immediately?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend is ever vigilant of the interests of the parachute regiment. I do not think that anybody seriously believes that we can get much legislation passed in the House without his close observance and approval of it. We are looking at the training arrangements and are anxious to ensure that our future forces receive the best and most relevant forms of training in the most efficient and cost-effective way. There may be further announcements shortly.

Rev. Martin Smyth: While welcoming the briefing that is continually taking place, may I press the Secretary of State to bear in mind that the reserve forces are always an important aspect of our national forces? In an earlier reply he suggested that in Northern Ireland, those who wanted to volunteer for the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve


could volunteer for some other service. Does he accept that some people prefer to prepare for international emergencies and not necessarily be involved in the local scene? Will he bear that in mind as he considers further recruitment for the TAVR in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He will recall that when I made the announcement about the TA I made the point that even with the proposed changes the people of Northern Ireland will enjoy some of the best opportunities in the United Kingdom to take part in TA service. There are changes—the numbers were exceptionally high, as the hon. Gentleman graphically indicated just now—but still no one could claim that Northern Ireland was badly placed in respect of our proposals.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the anxiety that still persists in Staffordshire about the fate of the Staffordshire regiment is not mere local and parochial concern but is based on a wider concern for the strength of the infantry? Can he say anything this afternoon that will enable me to reassure my very worried constituents?

Mr. King: I entirely sympathise with the feelings described by my hon. Friend. I was met by a very respectful group of Gordon Highlanders when I visted Aberdeen recently, when I said that I would have been on the line as well had I been in their position.
We have made our plans; they involve change; they involve striking a balance. The Army has reached its decisions. My hon. Friend is concerned about what the strength of the infantry will be in three years' time. We are steadily working towards the plans that we set out. which we believe are right. Were the world to change significantly, we would of course have to look at them again.
I do not want to be misunderstood. We have no plans to change: we believe that these proposals are right. We believe in smaller but better, which means a choice between the numbers of people and the quality of the equipment that they can enjoy. My hon. Friend will concede that we have more than lived up to our promise that our Army of the future, as the Select Committee report said, will be outstandingly well equipped. We intend that to apply to the Navy and to the Air Force as well.

Dr. Reid: The Secretary of State pointed out in his last answer that on 21 February he expressed sympathy with some of the supporters of the regiments, and he said that he would have been standing outside under the same banners. He did not mention, however, that his answer on the same occasion made it absolutely clear that the proposed regimental cuts would proceed irrespective of the findings of the Defence Select Committee report. How could the Secretary of State dismiss so lightly and in advance a report which had not even been written at that date? Is not that a discourtesy to the Select Committee, which is made up mainly of Conservative Back Benchers? Will it not be regarded by them and by the regiments as an admission that he is unable to justify on security grounds the cuts that he has made?

Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman quoting a newspaper report on this matter? If that is the report to which he is referring, when asked how I would react to a Select Committee report I said that it would depend on what it said. It is not mandatory on any Government or Minister

automatically to accept every Select Committee report. We will respond constructively; if we believe that the report's criticisms are right and constructive, we will take them into account. If we disagree with them, we will say so in the most courteous and, I hope, respectful way we can.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the high degree of dependence of the Plymouth travel-to-work area on defence-related activity? Does he agree that it is therefore essential that the area be involved meaningfully in future in our nuclear submarine programme and in the Devonport-based surface ships?

Mr. King: Not only am I aware of that dependence; I am aware of the debt that we owe the area and of the real contribution made by the people of Plymouth to the Royal Navy and the Royal Marine Commandos, among other units involved. They would be the first to show their appreciation.
We have made it absolutely clear that we are determined that Plymouth should have a good future. I do not want to go into detail now, but that is certain. How good that future is will depend in part on the performance of the dockyard, which is competing right now. I hope that the dockyard will be in a position to make a significant contribution to the work in future—our budget provides for that. Indeed, we are the only party to have made the financial provision to ensure that that happens.

Young People

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many young people under the age of 18 years are currently serving in the armed forces.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: As at 1 January 1992, the latest date for which we have information, there were 7,647 personnel under 18 years of age serving in the armed forces.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the growing international concern about the use of children and young people in various conflicts, especially in third-world countries, how on earth can the Minister possibly justify a situation in this country whereby a young lad can join the Army at the age of 16, or in some cases at the age of 15, but if he changes his mind and wants to leave after serving more than six months he cannot do so and is forced to continue in the armed services until the age of 21? Is not it about time that the Government stopped this practice of recruiting and exploiting young people who are deemed not old enough to cast a vote but in some cases are being forced to continue in the Army and can be put into armed combat, as they were during the Gulf war?

Mr. Hamilton: The issue of people not being able to leave the forces until they are 21 was raised by the Select Committee that examined the Armed Forces Bill, now the Armed Forces Act 1991. We are looking at the matter and it is currently being considered by the Department. The hon. Gentleman asked about young people joining the armed forces. I do not know who the hon. Gentleman thinks he is speaking for, but I remind him that these people are volunteers and join with the approval of their parents. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a person under the age of 18 should not have joined his unit in the


Gulf? I do not think that that would have been the attitude of the young men who were very keen to fight for their country and to serve with their compatriots.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his earlier answer emphasised once again how essential and right it was for the Government to stand up against allowing homosexuality in the armed forces? Many parents of potential boy soldiers, sailors and airmen would have been very reluctant to allow their sons to join the armed forces if homosexuality had been allowed among those who were to train them.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. We carefully considered that issue, and I agree that many parents would have been reluctant to allow their children to serve with the armed forces at such a young age if homosexuality had been allowed.

Trident

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current position with regard to the Trident nuclear defence programme.

Mr. Tom King: The Trident programme remains on time and within budget. The first submarine, Vanguard, is set to roll out of the Devonshire dock hall in Barrow tomorrow and, following a series of sea trials, will enter service with the Royal Navy in the mid-1990s.

Mr. Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have had a consistent and unwavering policy on nuclear deterrence through the strength and use of Trident? Will he also confirm that the Government will place the order for the fourth Trident submarine as soon as possible?

Mr. King: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. It is our duty to protect our nation against the risk of nuclear attack and nuclear threat. That cannot be done on an on-off basis. We must provide the means, the equipment and the training, and that must be maintained year after year. We cannot take risks. My great concern about the totally ambivalent position of the Labour party is that it is prepared to take risks by not having enough submarines to provide an effective deterrent. That applies even to the minority in the Labour party who believe in the nuclear deterrent. We have heard the ultimate nonsense from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who has said that if a Labour Government order a fourth boat they will not put any warheads on it.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Did the Secretary of State derive some comfort from the authoritative letter in The Times of 18 February from the noble Lord Lewin underlining the need for four submarines for the Trident fleet? Did he also note in the same letter the noble lord expressed the view that it may be possible to adapt Tridents to fill a sub-strategic role? In view of that, did not the Secretary of State pause to conclude that whatever NATO may require, there is no requirement for the United Kingdom to have its own tactical air-to-surface missile?

Mr. King: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's support in respect of the fourth Trident boat. I give him credit for that, although I cannot give much credit to his policy of favouring a 50 per cent. cut in

defence expenditure, which means that there is not the slightest chance of his being able to pay for the extra boat. At least he is father to the wish, even if he cannot guarantee its achievement.
As for the hon. and learned Gentleman's other point, I have made the NATO position clear before.

Mr. Churchill: When my right hon. Friend goes to Barrow later in the week, will he congratulate Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. and its work force there on the excellent job that they have done in constructing the vessels to specification and to schedule?
Is not it clear that a party which, a few years ago, was offering to do a deal with the Soviet leadership that would have involved the sacrifice of 100 per cent. of Britain's deterrent in return for only 2 per cent. of the Soviet deterrent cannot be trusted with Britain's defences?

Mr. King: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall ensure that the message that he has asked me to convey is conveyed tomorrow, when I go to Barrow to mark the roll-out of the first Vanguard submarine. This is a great achievement on the part of all the company's work force, and of not only those who work in Barrow but those employed in the other elements that make up our Trident system. That system will now come into operation, and will be available for the defence of our country for many years.

Mr. O'Neill: On Thursday, some of the Secretary of State's officials will give evidence about Trident to the Select Committee on Defence. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on 6 March 1991, in answer to question 40, Rear Admiral Pirnie said that Britain could maintain a continuous patrol with three Trident submarines, and that with one submarine in refit we could still maintain a continuous patrol with only two submarines? Is that still the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers?

Mr King: That is a complete misintepretation of the original evidence, which related to the period immediately prior to Vanguard's first refit. The hon. Gentleman need not think that there is any military support for the idea that in the past the Navy has argued for a three-boat solution, and he will be given a very rough time by the Navy if he makes such a suggestion. As far as I am aware, no senior officer in the Navy considers it possible to maintain the nuclear deterrent without four submarines —and certainly no senior naval officer would support the suggestion of the Labour candidate for Barrow and Furness that the fourth submarine should be turned into a 17,000 tonne sub-sea supply vessel delivering oil instead of missiles.

Orders

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the value of current orders placed by his Department with British Aerospace, Royal Ordnance, VSEL, Ferranti and Leyland Daf.

Mr. King: The current value of outstanding contracts placed by the Ministry of Defence with the companies listed is as follows: British Aerospace, £1,625 million; Royal Ordnance, £315 million; VSEL, £1,070 million; Ferranti, £360 million; and Leyland Daf, £105 million.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the lion's share of the contracts that he has just announced has been placed with defence factories in the north-west of England, including Lancashire. Will he confirm that, if he were sufficiently unwise—like the Labour party—to cut a further £6 billion from the defence budget, over and above the "Options for Change" proposals, there would be massive job losses in those factories? Will he also confirm that he does not intend to do that?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend referred to the north-west of England, and I can give him the figure for Lancashire. The current orders outstanding are worth £540 million. As he has asked, I can tell him that, were there to be a cut of £6 billion in the defence budget, the vast majority of those jobs in Lancashire would go and factories would close.

Mr. Boyes: Nevertheless—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If Conservative Members want to play infantile games, I am prepared to stand here.
Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that the number of defence jobs in the north-west has gone down from 23,000 in 1985–86 to only 12,000 in 1989–90, a cut of almost 50 per cent. in only four years? That does not take account of the many closures and redundancies announced since the end of 198–0 which have halved again the number of jobs in the north-west. Unless the Government are prepared to provide a forum for funds and expertise to assist the defence industry to diversify into other products, the job losses and the decline in Britain's economic performance will continue—but, then, the Secretary of State does not care.

Mr. King: Not only do I care but the Government are meeting their obligations and providing procurement orders to ensure that our forces have the equipment that they need. The House will have heard the hon. Gentleman in his honest and decent way—the House respects his honesty—accepting with his opening word "nevertheless" that that is the implication of Labour's defence policy. I can tell the hon. Gentleman with the full authority of my office and my responsibility for the programme that if one cuts £6 billion from the defence budget no defence job in the country will be safe.

Islander Aircraft

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the performance of the Islander aircraft in service with the Army Air Corps.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): The Islander aircraft fully meet the Army's performance requirements.

Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Islander aircraft have established a reputation as the Rolls-Royce of the skies, being virtually indestructible and operating in one of the most hostile environments in the world? Is not that a tribute to the Islander designers and the engineers who built them? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that they will remain in service for many years to come, unlike the scenario if the Liberal Democrats were ever to implement their 50 per cent. cut in our defence forces?

Mr. Carlisle: Yes. I am glad to pay tribute to the aircraft and to PBN, the company which makes it. I welcome the support that my hon. Friend has always given

to that company. We have 10 of those aircraft in service. It is a robust and very useful aircraft which is cheap to run and has great endurance. It is a valuable piece of equipment, and my hon. Friend may like to know that in the next two or three years we shall proceed with some large modifications to it which we estimate will bring about £4 million worth of work to PBN on the Isle of Wight. I agree that if the Liberal Democrats came to power, that work would not proceed.

Trident

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the ordering of the fourth Trident submarine.

Mr. Tom King: Contract negotiations with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. for the fourth Trident submarine are under way. We intend to place the order as soon as those negotiations have been satisfactorily concluded. Meanwhile, construction of steelwork and major engineering items is making good progress under long lead funding arrangements.

Mr. Sayeed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and the answer that he has just given have comprehensively shot a number of foxes, but one is still up and running. Will he confirm that during its lifetime in service Trident will take about 3 per cent. of the defence budget and that no other known system could be so cost effective but still provide the same degree of security?

Mr. King: I think that the figure is nearer 2·5 per cent., but that is correct. Whatever the Labour party's views in the past, it is incredible that any responsible party could be prepared to take risks with our defence budget and could be prepared to take risks with our nuclear deterrent when the world faces the biggest risk of nuclear proliferation that it has ever faced. Our position is that we shall ensure that we have a nuclear deterrent that is available at all times for the protection of our country.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State take a little time to reflect on a previous answer on non-proliferation? How can he, in logic or in practice, sustain a position whereby he is asking the Soviet Union, as was, to dismantle its nuclear deterrents while he is embarking on a system in which each missile provides the equivalent of 80 Hiroshima bombs? The Secretary of State talked about cost. How can he justify a cost per job in the strategic deterrent of £352,000 in a world in which the major powers are building down and renouncing weapons but he is building up?

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman seriously does not understand that point, he had better talk to President Yeltsin, who does. President Yeltsin, as he made clear outside No. 10 Downing street, understands that the position of a super-power which has 30,000 nuclear weapons is different from the position of the United Kingdom which will have as an absolute maximum only 128 warheads per submarine. There is no comparison, as President Yeltsin recognises. Indeed, his ambition is to move down now to a minimum deterrent. His idea of a minimum deterrent is to maintain 2,500 warheads.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend once and for all nail the myth of the credible three-boat Trident deterrent? Will he confirm that all the professional advice that he has received from the Royal Navy is that only four boats absolutely guarantees an effective nuclear deterrent for this country?

Mr. King: That is absolutely right. The Opposition do not understand that we have to provide for the full life of the Trident system—for 30 years. Over such a period, as has already been apparent with Polaris, if we had only had three, we should not have been able to maintain that programme. I should have thought that that lesson was clear. The true description of Labour's position on that was given by Mr. Hutton, the Labour candidate for Barrow and Furness. When he heard the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) suggest that Labour could replace a Trident submarine with, for example, a Trafalgar class submarine on the order book, Mr. Hutton described his right hon. Friend as "ignorant and ill informed".

Avionic Repair Department

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been undertaken with regard to transfer of the avionic repair department from RAF Carlisle to RAF Sealand.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: This matter is currently under consideration by the chief executive of the maintenance group defence support agency.

Mr. Martlew: During last Thursday's visit to Carlisle, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and I were very impressed by the quality of the work, and by the efficiency and dedication of the work force at the station. However, there was grave concern about the future of the avionic department there. It is well known that the appraisal has been carried out and that the information is with the Minister. The 100 employees and their families will be disappointed to hear today that the Government are putting off their decision until after the election. The Minister is hiding behind red tape. If he does not take the decision before the election and if the Conservatives are re-elected, I am afraid that we shall lose another 100 jobs in Carlisle.

Mr. Hamilton: As I have said, that is all up to the chief executive. We await any proposals to come from him, and we have had no proposals so far. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about fewer than 100 jobs out of the 1,000 people who are employed at Carlisle.

Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any study of avionic repair facilities does not affect the Royal Naval aircraft yard at Fleetlands in my constituency? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he recognises the outstanding work done at Fleetlands?

Mr. Hamilton: I would, indeed, pay tribute to the work done at Fleetlands, and there is certainly no question of the avionic repairs at Carlisle having any effect on Fleetlands.

Army Sports Control Board

Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Army Sports Control Board will next meet to discuss funding.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The board will meet next on 20 August 1992 to discuss the allocation of non-public fund grants to Army sports.

Ms. Hoey: The Minister is well aware that the armed services sports body does not give a single penny to rugby league. Will he please explain why, in the list of sports and games that are supported, we find that there are apparently more people who support and provide funding for model aircraft than support and provide funding for rugby league, and why a sport that is universally recognised as a great sport gets not a single penny from the Army Sports Control Board?

Mr. Hamilton: The Army supports the most popular sports. There are a number of sports that are not supported by public funding and they include angling and archery, which are more popular than rugby league. Very few people want to play rugby league. The only time that a rugby league game was started off anywhere was in the Royal Air Force under a corporal at Coningsby who was very keen. He could raise only one team of 13 players, which left him with no reserves and no team against which to play. I am afraid that the evidence at the moment is that the game is not sufficiently supported by members of the armed forces.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. John Townend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disposable income of 10 million mortgage payers is affected by two factors—income tax and interest rates? Is he aware that the Labour party will put up both—a double whammy?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. We have brought down interest rates and we are determined to keep them low. We believe that the Labour party would do precisely the reverse. An average of 10 independent City forecasts shows that interest rates would rise by 2½ per cent. immediately if there were to be such a disaster as a Labour Government. That is Labour's message to home owners—more taxes and higher interest rates.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have an end to all this shouting.

Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister seen the report from Mr. Graham Jackson, consultant cardiologist at Guy's trust hospital, who says:
You put"—
seriously ill heart—
patients on a list to come in but, by the time their turn comes, the contract has run out and the trust administrator says there are no funds till the next financial year"?
Does not the Prime Minister agree that such a system, which puts cash before care, betrays the fundamental principle of the national health service?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no system that puts cash before care. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that we have provided more additional resources in this Parliament than he was even prepared to promise in his last election manifesto.

Mr. Kinnock: But does not Dr. Jackson have a powerful point when he says that the new system—[Interruption] This is a man working in the system. Does not he have a powerful point when he says:
The new system is run by accountants … who don't have to sit across the table from the patient and say cannot treat you'
until the new financial year? Will the Prime Minister recognise now that it is tragically wrong for treatment for seriously ill people to be determined by money rather than medical need?

The Prime Minister: The view that the right hon. Gentleman attributes to that surgeon is certainly not shared by, among others, Nye Bevan's nephew. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government's role in health is twofold: first, to provide the resources and, secondly, to make them work better for patients. The resources are at a record level, as the right hon. Gentleman must concede, and the new system is making sure that the resources work better for patients. There is no other way to improve health care and there is no doubt that the new system, across a range of treatment, is improving health care.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is going to borrow to fund tax cuts. Does he understand yet that the priority of the British people is to use all available resources for health and other essential services? The Prime Minister wants to bribe, they want to build—why does not he listen to them?

The Prime Minister: In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, perhaps he will tell us two things: how much extra would he provide for health, and where does health come in Labour's order of priorities? Labour has a long list of priorities: a £3 billion pledge on pensions —presumably health comes after that; health presumably comes after Labour's billion recovery programme and it presumably comes after Labour's £8 billion housing pledge. What else does it come after? The right hon. Gentleman's priorities do not add up and he knows it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot put a cost on his compassion, for it is bogus.

Mr. Lee: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lee: Since the Government came to power, my Pendle constituency has gained two new enterprise zones which are bursting at the seams, one new motorway and a brand new community hospital. Currently, 55 per cent. of employment is in manufacturing—the highest level in the country. Modesty prevents my asking my right hon. Friend what message he will send to the electorate of Pendle in the coming election. However, what message will he send to the electorate in the whole of the north-west?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly reiterate fully the message that I delivered when I visited the north-west a few days ago. The future and prosperity of the north-west are best served by a Government who are determined to

keep inflation down, who want to keep taxes down—and will not let interest rates rise as the Opposition would—and who recognise that the level of strikes is at its lowest for more than a century. In the north-west, we will continue to encourage domestic and inward investment and we will not discriminate against it.

Mr. Ashdown: Now that we know what it means, will the Prime Minister reflect on the "double whammy" that he received from the other place on the Education (Schools) Bill last night? When will he accept that the best thing to do with that damaging and foolish Bill is to ditch it?

The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to providing more power for parents in relation to schools. I note that it is the Liberal Democrats' policy to take power away from parents and governors and to give it to centralised bureaucrats, and that is precisely like the Labour party policy as in so many things.

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the dangers inherent in introducing unworkable proposals for devolution for Scotland? Does he accept that if such proposals were implemented, they would lead to a separatist, socialist, nationalist Scotland, enormous loss of jobs and the closure of military bases? The jobs that currently go to the military in the United Kingdom would be lost from factories in Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the risks of the devolution proposals which have previously been put before people. The Act of Union has served Scotland well and it has served England well. It has provided an essential cement for the whole of the United Kingdom. The devolution proposals that we have seen thus far would damage that union and separately damage Scotland, England and the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand the emotional pull that devolution has for people in Scotland, but I hope that every Scot will examine very carefully what it would mean in practice for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Ms. Short: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Short: Has the Prime Minister seen the report on "World in Action" last night, which showed that one of his Ministers has been involved in smearing a private citizen? Does not this place give the Prime Minister the chance to show whether he is really against the smears that have been organised against the Labour party, or is he getting others to do his dirty work for him? Will he sack the Minister concerned?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady were sensible, she would look in the backyard of her own party.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hill: Will my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Sit down.

Mr. Hill: Will my right hon. Friend continue vigorously and robustly to negotiate the British contribution to the European budget and, at the end, submit it at a level which the House of Commons and the country can accept?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Community's budget is already £40 billion a year. The existing own resources ceiling has plenty of room for further expenditure without increased resources being committed. It is the Government's view that the Commission should be thinking of ways of saving taxpayers' money, not justifying fresh reasons for expending it. It cannot justify increased expenditure on the scale that it proposes, and we are not prepared to renegotiate in any way the present rebate to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that the parents of Carly Reavill and everyone else know that he was misinformed on the circumstances concerning that child's tragic death? Will he accept that there is indeed an acute shortage of intensive care beds for children? Will he tell us precisely what action he intends to take so that never again will desperately sick children be turned away from hospitals which do not have the money to provide emergency treatment?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know, for he takes a close interest in this matter, that from next year, there is an extra £2·7 billion for the health service in its next budget, in a few day's time—up another 5 per cent., including efficiency gains. That is the most tangible way to demonstrate our concern for the health service and to continue to improve the service available to everyone in this country.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has been successful in building on the work of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in bringing the constitutional parties together. Will he accept that we are asking the Social Democratic and Labour party and the unionists to work more closely than parties normally do in Great Britain? Will he send a message to the Provisional IRA and the disloyalists that the mindless, aimless use of bullets and bombs will not be as successful as parliamentary debates and normal political election campaigns?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the whole House will share my hon. Friend's view on the latter matter. I warmly

welcome the decision of the Northern Ireland political leaders to start their talks again. It gives a clear and very welcome signal to all the people in Northern Ireland of their determination to find a political solution. That is very much needed. It also gives a very clear signal to the terrorists that the people of Northern Ireland will not be bullied by guns, by bombs or by any other form of intimidation. That goes for everyone on the mainland as well.

Sir Patrick Duffy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Patrick Duffy: As the restructuring of the armed services proceeds, the displaced and redundant service men will continue to be treated with the utmost care and sensitivity, as the Prime Minister is well aware. But if that policy is not extended to the displaced workers in the defence industries, does the Prime Minister accept that our high-tech base will be damaged, perhaps irreparably? Certainly, we can ask questions about the future of certain design teams and skilled and professional workers.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we still have substantial orders for defence equipment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a further statement shortly.

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if he or my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment had a meeting with business leaders to discuss the policy of the minimum wage, they would tell both the House and the country what business leaders had to say about the damaging effect on jobs that such a minimum wage would have? Does my right hon. Friend think that the shadow spokesman on employment should do likewise?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The minimum wage policy has been condemned by everyone from The Guardian to Goldman Sachs. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is apparently the only person in the country who does not yet believe that the minimum wage would cost a substantial number of jobs if it were implemented. The only debate about the national minimum wage is not whether it would put people out of work but how many hundreds of thousands more people would be unemployed, wholly unnecessarily as a result of partisan dogma on the part of the Labour party.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the statement.

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, who is an old parliamentary hand, knows that I do not take points of order until after the statement. I will hear him then.

Air-to-Air Missile

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the procurement of a system to meet the RAF's future requirement for a short-range air-to-air missile. The missile will he fitted to RAF Harriers and to the new European fighter aircraft which we expect to come into service with the RAF at the end of the decade. This important project was originally initiated under an international collaborative arrangement with Germany, Norway and Canada. Following the withdrawal of the other partners in 1989 and 1990, we decided to hold a competition for the RAF' requirement.
Both before proceeding with this competition and during the past two years we have reviewed the justification for this requirement against the dramatic changes in the world and our strategy for "Britain's Defence for the 90s" and beyond. In this the air defence of the United Kingdom and the protection of United Kingdom and allied forces wherever they may be deployed remain important priorities.
One consequence of the rapid changes in the former Soviet Union is the increasing availability of very capable aircraft and weapons more widely in the world. Therefore, it remains essential to ensure that the RAF has suitable aircraft and weapons with which to face such potential threats. The Gulf war was the clearest reminder of the importance of air superiority in any conflict.
I can tell the House that the competition for this important order has been very keen and I am grateful to the three bidders, British Aerospace Defence Ltd., GEC Marconi and Bodenseewerk Geratetechnik, for providing the basis for a real choice. The key factors in making our choice have been the total cost to public funds, technical merit, operational effectiveness, and compliance with our requirement for taut contractual terms. Our overall aim has been to maximise value for money in the proposals, while minimising the future risks of either excess cost or delay.
I can now tell the House that subject only to satisfactory agreement on final points of detail, we have selected the British Aerospace proposal for its advanced short-range air-to-air missile—ASRAAM. Our intention now is to place a contract for development and initial production of the missile. The order will be worth about £570 million, which is already provided for in our forward expenditure plans.
The decision will bring welcome work, not only to British Aerospace's dynamics division in Stevenage and Lostock, near Bolton, but also to its principal sub-contractors—Hughes at Glenrothes in Scotland, Royal Ordnance at Kidderminster, Thorn EMI at Feltham, and Lucas at Bradford. In addition, other sub-contract work will be placed with up to 70 further companies in the United Kingdom. More than 80 per cent. of the work in total will be carried out in the United Kingdom.
The Government believe that this new missile will provide a vital enhancement to our air defence capability in the future and is a further demonstration of our commitment to provide our forces with the modern equipment that they need.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: In thanking the Secretary of State for his statement, may I express our appreciation that it was provided before Defence questions? However, we regret the absence from the Government Front Bench of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), who would appear either to have gone AWOL, or to be in jankers for the insubordination that he displayed in the interview in the Sunday Times on Sunday.
The statement will come as a relief to the work force of those companies. We shall have to wait until election day to find out whether it will come as a relief to the Conservative candidates in the seats concerned. It is a tribute to the work force, the planners and the engineers that they have been able to crack an extremely difficult technical problem. However, it may not have come soon enough for the 450 people employed by British Aerospace, whose redundancies were announced on 6 February as a result of the delay in the announcement of this project.
When does the Secretary of State expect production to start? He has announced his intention to place the contract. When does he expect it to have an impact on employment? How confident is he that there will be an export market for the missile, given the withdrawal of the Norwegians and the Germans from the earlier stages of the programme?

Mr. King: To deal with the first point, I do not know what the workers in British Aerospace and other companies will think of the right hon. Gentleman's rather flippant introduction to an announcement which is of great importance to them. He then went on to express his concern about any workers who might lose their jobs. I should have thought that he would have welcomed this obvious relief.

Mr. O'Neill: What about those people who have already lost their jobs?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman said that 450 people may have received redundancy notices. He will be aware that the prime contractor of British Aerospace has claimed that the announcement will help to secure the jobs of 7,000 people. I like the right hon. Member personally, but it is hypocrisy for him to stand up—seeking to represent a party which has consistently voted for huge cuts in defence —and have the nerve to criticise the Government, who are not merely claiming and asserting that they will order equipment, but are proving it by our statements.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) has been closely involved in the planning of the order and it is a particular disappointment that he is not here. The reason why he is not here is that he is representing the United Kingdom, in support of British industry, at an extremely important air show at my specific request. I am grateful to him for undertaking that. His visit will be appreciated by British industry, even if the hon. Member for Clackmannan makes light of it.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the services will welcome this procurement decision because there is a need for an advanced short-range air-to-air missile. My right hon. Friend said that 7,000 jobs would be safeguarded in British Aerospace. Can he say how many jobs in the downstream


suppliers are likely to be safeguarded? Would any of them be safeguarded if a £6 billion reduction in defence spending was brought in by the Labour party?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend makes the point clearly. We have made it clear that there will be some changes in defence and some reductions in defence expenditure. I have set out before the House—the Government cannot be accused of not telling the country—that those changes will involve savings of about 6 per cent. in real terms. Our proposal is for smaller but better forces which are better equipped.
My statement is of enormous importance, as it will ensure that our future fighter aircraft have the capacity to defend themselves against the modern equipment that they may face. Soviet equipment, which is now much more widely available on the world market, has a sophistication and a capability which pose a real threat. Were we not to proceed in this way, our pilots could be at a severe disadvantage. Hon. Members know that that is true.
My announcement is important to our defence and it is a proper reward to many who work in the industry and for their skills. I mentioned the figure of 7,000 which the prime contractor has estimated will be the number of people involved in one way or another in the contracts. I also referred to the figure of £570 million—the House can draw its own conclusions about that—which will be spent over the next 10 years. The weapon will come into service first in 1998–99. It is a very important project indeed.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. I also offer my congratulations to British Aerospace because, as the Secretary of State would acknowledge, it has fought long and hard for the order. Is not the announcement significant because the combination of the European fighter aircraft and the missile will contribute to the air defence of the United Kingdom and, without that marriage, that would be difficult to achieve?

Mr. King: Yes. First, we will install it to all RAF Harriers and then expect it to be installed on to the EFA. Although the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said that export sales will be difficult if the collaborative partners have fallen out, I think that there will be important export opportunities for this weapon as there is no equivalent weapon available, with the exception of a Russian variety. I have taken steps with the United States and have spoken with Defence Secretary Cheney to ensure that we have the best export opportunities. Although Hughes manufactures in Glenrothes in Scotland, it will be keen to do development work in the United States and, to pursue opportunities that may well exist within the United States, the United States forces and third countries to which the United States exports aircraft.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which underpins the strategy of flexibility outlined in "Options for Change". Can he assure us that Hughes, whose parent company is based in the United States, will not run into problems of technology transfer when seeking to export?

Mr. King: There is an inter-company agreement between Hughes and British Aerospace on that. Hughes has a United States Government export licence for the

early stages of the programme and, as I have said, I have been in touch with my friend and colleague in NATO, the United States Secretary of Defence Dick Cheney. I have a satisfactory letter of assurance from him on their best efforts in that respect.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Elections are better than Christmas for some industries. In view of the long delay that there has been in the programme for the replacement of Sidewinder, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that that breached the original memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and the United States? That means that we have lost the opportunity to export many of these systems to the United States.

Mr. King: Let us wait and see. The arrangements may have been lost under the old programme—we know that the collaborative arrangement did not work out—but let us wait and see if there is a better alternative. There are those who believe that this will prove an outstandingly effective weapon, and it is fair to say that the Select Committee on Defence supports the programme and sees the merits that could lie in it. I am encouraged by what I see in the technical assessment of it. We have taken the decision to go ahead, so we are under way. Let us see who else is around and whether this weapon will command some quite interesting export opportunities.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation of Bristol Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), who is unable to speak this afternoon? We have worked long and hard on the ASRAAM project and we welcome the decision announced this afternoon, which involves literally hundreds of millions of pounds. Will my right hon. Friend press British Aerospace and Hughes to take immediate action in encouraging the United States Government to look seriously at the commitment that the British Government have made, with the prospect of further orders all over the world?

Mr. King: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. While my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage is not able to speak, he is certainly not inarticulate in support of his constituents, as the whole House knows.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will understand when I say that I am struck by the contrast. Here we have an opportunity. We are investing in British technology and development—also in a collaborative international project—for a new system which can be of great benefit. We get sniping from Opposition Members about not doing something, and when we do it, we get them carping about some problem, with technicalities or whatever.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Can the Secretary of State give more information about numbers? He gave the raw statistics and referred to 7,000 jobs, and we gather that they will be preserved or created by this order. In the last few weeks, we have had procurement orders worth over £1 billion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But all those were announced in connection with the defence White Paper, so the right hon. Gentleman is doing this merely for election purposes. I am not quarrelling with that, because all parties do it. I am seeking further information from the Scottish point of view. The only jobs that we can see being safeguarded as a result of


this order relate to Hughes in Glenrothes. Can the right hon. Gentleman give further information about the number of jobs in Scotland which will come directly or indirectly from this order?

Mr. King: I was careful—the hon. Gentleman will recognise this straight away—not myself to attribute claims to the number of jobs involved. It depends on how the companies handle the business and the number of subcontractors they use. The figure of 7,000 to which I referred was used by British Aerospace in the material that the company sent to a number of hon. Members in support of its case, saying that that would be the number of people involved in this country in the programme.
I cannot give specific figures for Hughes in Glenrothes —[Interruption.] Is it suggested that there is something wrong with investing in our armed forces? I do not know whether Opposition Members disapprove of the fact that we have been able to come forward with orders for new frigates, for new tanks, for a new helicopter with an anti-submarine capability, the Merlin, for the Royal Navy, with a new package for the Harrier, with an order for ALARM, the air-launched anti-radiation missile, and that we are giving our forces the resources and equipment that they need. Yes, they will be smaller, but they will be better equipped than ever in our history, and surely that is appropriate in an uncertain and unstable world.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend accept the deep thanks of hon. Members who represent north-west constituencies for the order, and in particular the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) who, because he is in the Whips Office, is unable to express his thanks personally in the House? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the order is in addition—to the £3·5 billion worth of defence orders placed with firms in the north-west about which he spoke some 20 minutes ago?

Mr. King: I certainly confirm that. I referred to £540 million as being the contract in Lancashire for defence contractors. That did not include this announcement, which I was not able to make until 3.30 this afternoon. I can confirm that, as a member of the Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) cannot speak in support of the measure, but that does not disqualify him from representing his constituents in this matter. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), he has done that most effectively. Lancashire will benefit significantly from the order.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the third paragraph of his statement, the Secretary of State referred to
the increasing availability of very capable aircraft and weapons
from the Soviet Union being available
more widely in the world.
Factually, is there any evidence to suggest that Russia, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan or any other republic is exporting sophisticated Russian weapons? If so, to whom? To Iraq, Iran, Muslim states, Libya—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am intrigued to know how the hon. Gentleman's question relates to the statement.

Mr. Dalyell: I quoted the actual words of the third paragraph of the statement. The rationale of the whole statement is that we must have those orders rather than peaceful developments because Russian arms are being

scattered around the world. I was pressing the Secretary of State to tell me what the evidence is for Russian arms being exported and to whom they are being exported. Surely it should be conditional that aid to scientists and to the Soviet Union will not be given if arms are being exported. If the Ministry of Defence is right, the matter is extremely serious. What is the evidence?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is usually better informed on these matters. There is nothing new about it. The Soviet Union has been exporting weapons to a number of those countries for some time. One missile—the Archer missile—represents a serious threat and is probably superior to Sidewinder. That is already in service in the former Soviet Union and with certain export customers—

Mr. Dalyell: Which export customers?

Mr. King: It can be fitted on the Fulcrum aircraft and the Mig 29, which are highly sophisticated aircraft. It is already in service—

Mr. Dalyell: Where?

Mr. King: In Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. It was used by the East German air force and is believed to be used by Cuba, India, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Syria. I wonder occasionally whether the hon. Gentleman knows what is going on. Perhaps he is so busy interrupting that he does not hear the answer.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend for the order on behalf of my constituents who live around Stevenage. Does he agree that the crucial point about the order is that it will keep the technical teams together and enable us to keep ahead of the competition, not only with the air-to-air missile but with other related technologies that we need to boost our exports militarily and in civil industry?

Mr. King: That is right, and I pay tribute to the proposals that British Aerospace submitted. I said in my statement that the competition had been keenly fought and I pay tribute to GEC Marconi, which also submitted excellent proposals. We are fortunate to have two such excellent defence contractors in this country which can put forward proposals for such a sophisticated and complex project. I am grateful to them both.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since these pre-election statements have been made in the past fortnight, some £2 billion in public expenditure has been announced up to the end of last week? Why should Ministers believe that a country which has suffered such devastating unemployment and two major recessions will accept as genuine a dying Government giving goodies to certain marginal areas at this time?

Mr. King: I wonder what people working in British Aerospace, Hughes, Lucas Aerospace and Royal Ordnance will think of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, asking why we worry about unemployment. Those people are worried about unemployment. I have been criticised for announcing measures already foreshadowed in the defence White Paper. In this respect, a competition has been held and it was right to give the results of that


competition as soon as we could so that people know who the winners are. That is what we have done, and I make no apology for it.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Of course, the equipment is essential and vital for the future defence of the realm and we are proud that missile equipment of that sort is British. But is my right hon. Friend aware that I believe that he has picked the wrong contractor, which will be a bitter blow for GEC Marconi, the headquarters of which is in my constituency? Will he explain the details again to consider the applications and the possibility of an independent investigation? What promise does he hold out to GEC Marconi for further contracts to preserve employment, when jobs are already threatened both at Stanmore and elsewhere? What can he say about the superior technology of the GEC Marconi application, which was a genuinely all-British bid?

Mr. King: I understand my hon. Friend's disappointment. I have just paid tribute to GEC Marconi for the quality of the bid that it tendered. My hon. Friend has made a judgment—he is no doubt well qualified to do so —as to why the Marconi bid ought to have been chosen. It is a matter of huge importance to the Royal Air Force, and one on which the most thorough assessment has to be made. We are talking about an air defence weapon to equip our aircraft and fighter bombers for their fighter defence and self-protection role. The equipment will not come into service until the end of the decade, and it will have to serve and protect our country and pilots for the next 20 to 25 years. It is not a decision to be taken lightly, and it has been a matter of the most thorough assessment to determine which proposal should be chosen.
We have made it quite clear to GEC Marconi, as it would wish, that we wish to make a full presentation to it on the circumstances of its bid and the reasons why it was not successful on this occasion. I have a list of orders that have been placed. GEC Marconi is an important defence contractor. There has been an announcement in the past two weeks on air-launched anti-radar missiles, with which GEC Marconi is involved, and other defence contracts. There was an earlier announcement on the frigates for Yarrow, which is part of GEC Marconi, which remains and will continue to be an important defence contractor.

Mr. John McFall: I have a short question requiring a short answer. Does the weapon have the same capability as the original staff requirement SR(A) 1234 called for?

Mr. King: It fully meets that requirement.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having made representations about the project to my right hon. Friend and the Ministry of Defence 18 months ago, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision, which I believe is the correct one. Does he believe that it will maintain the vanguard position for the United Kingdom in that sphere? Will he be as sensitive in respect of the British Aerospace project which will replace the Hercules as he has been about ASRAAM?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The cuckoo has turned into a parrot.

Mr. King: Certainly not a stool pigeon.
If it were Vanguard, it would roll out tomorrow. It is not Vanguard, but an alternative weapon system, which will certainly put us in the lead and give our air force a valuable capability which it might otherwise lack. The appetite of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in his new-found mode—to put it in defence terms—is insatiable. I cannot comment on the alternatives that he mentioned.

Mr. Skinner: Is not the truth that today's statement is not about defence, but about Tory marginal seats and another example of pork-barrel politics? There have been several references to exports and selling all around the world. We have already heard several times since the Gulf war about selling arms to Iraq and the penalties to be incurred as a result. Does the Secretary of State have a list of prohibited countries to which the weapon will not be sold?

Mr. King: That interesting introduction showed exactly how the hon. Gentleman regards defence. He sees defence as no more than pork-barrel politics. He has no interest in defence, no interest in whether our pilots in the RAF have the equipment that they need to defend our country—

Mr. Dalyell: Is there a list?

Mr. King: Of course there is a list of countries to which we do not sell, as every right hon. and hon. Member knows. But there are some countries to which we are prepared to sell weapons—

Mr. Skinner: What about Iran?

Mr. King: Despite the hon. Gentleman's new-found interest in these matters, he may not be aware that we are involved in large-scale arrangements with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to try to support its defence. There are those who believe that, if the Gulf countries' defences had been better equipped and resourced, we might not have had to ask our forces to go to their assistance.
We certainly sell to some countries; there are other regimes to which we would certainly not sell or provide our equipment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will allow questions to go on —exceptionally—for five more minutes, but there is another statement after this, so I ask for brief questions so that we may have brief answers too.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. Friend accept the warm appreciation of Conservative Members for this order, which fully enables him to live up to his word, given when outlining "Options for Change", that the forces would be smaller but better equipped. There will be many who had doubts at the time when "Options for Change" was announced who will warmly welcome today's statement—as they have welcomed similar statements in recent months.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know of his interest and the industrial concerns close to his constituency. I have no doubt that some of the subcontractors not mentioned by name today will be involved in this work, too.

Mr. David Sumberg: A number of my constituents are employed at the Bolton plant, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this excellent news for the north-west of England.
Whenever there is bad news for the north-west, Labour Members queue up to condemn the Government. Today, in stark contrast, not one of them has come to the House to thank my right hon. Friend for this excellent news.

Mr. King: I do not always have time to stand back and analyse interesting details like that, but my hon. Friend is right—it is significant that not one Labour Member from the areas concerned has recognised news which will be a considerable relief to a significant number of their constituents.

Mr. Michael Stern: My right hon. Friend is right not to try to translate this order into exact numbers of jobs, but does he agree that the undoubted effect at British Aerospace in the north-west and at the design section of British Aerospace defence division at Filton in my constituency will be to ensure that a company which has suffered a steady succession of job losses in the past couple of years can look forward to a future in which jobs are secure and, if export orders come in, job numbers will increase?

Mr. King: Yes, that is true. I know of the close interest that my hon. Friend takes in this. As one who worked in Bristol for a long time, I well know the factory to which he refers. It is important for Bristol, and I am glad that this announcement has been possible.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I warmly express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend and remind him that, some 10 years ago, when the task force sailed south, Her Majesty's Government had, as an emergency measure, to buy at very short notice large stocks of AIM9L Sidewinders from the United States because we did not have enough effective short-range air-to-air missiles. As a result of that purchase, we had air superiority and the war was won, but this time the Government are taking the right decisions in advance.

Mr. King: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's knowledge of this matter; he puts it in clear perspective. The importance of this announcement to the RAF cannot be overstated.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, since the collapse of the Soviet empire, the strategic threat to our country is far less certain in origin, and that air power with its flexibility has become even more significant in meeting and delivering strategic force to any area of threat? Does he agree that this weapons system will protect 7,000 jobs in vital high-tech areas, that it is a defensive weapon, and that the fact that it has been accepted by the Royal Air Force, whose standards are respected throughout the world, will greatly enhance its marketability throughout the world?

Mr. King: 1 am grateful to my hon. Friend for his last point—that the system may well give us a lead in certain countries. Apart from the former Soviet Union, we are not aware of any country with a weapon that could match our system when it eventually comes into service. Its potential to bring jobs and earnings to our country could be quite significant.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has been sending out clear messages to the rest of the world? Those messages are that whether it is the purchase for the Army of the Chieftain tank, the fourth Trident submarine for the Royal Navy, or today's announcement about a sophisticated British Aerospace weapon for the Royal Air Force, those are the deterrents that we must have. We are saying, "If you take on the United Kingdom, you do so at your peril."

Mr. King: It seems almost superfluous to add to the excellent and rousing words of my hon. Friend. He is precisely right. Although there are changes in the world and although it is possible to make some reductions, none the less instability and insecurity give rise to great fear among many of our friends and allies in the most unstable parts of the world. Our message of great comfort to them is that we are not retreating into isolation and adopting a little England policy of defending only our own shores but are ensuring that our forces have the requisite capability so that if our allies and friends are threatened we shall be ready and able to play our part in the United Nations, in NATO or in whatever international co-operation or coalition seems appropriate.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No—later, please.

Local Government (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr.Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of local government in Wales.
When I first met the Welsh local authority associations just over a year ago in January 1991 to discuss my review, they impressed upon me the widespread consensus throughout Wales for the establishment of unitary authorities in the Principality. Last June I published a consultation paper, in which I said that unitary authorities represented the best way forward for local government in Wales to meet the challenges of the future. I called for an extensive and wide-ranging debate. The Welsh local government associations and thousands of members of the public joined that debate, together, of course, with Members from all parts of the House. This has been a productive and an instructive exercise in consultation.
I now put before the House the conclusions that I have reached. The local government system which should emerge from this review should permit local people to understand the role of local government, enable them to identify with it, and provide them in a responsive way with high quality services efficiently and economically. I therefore reaffirm that there should be a single tier of unitary authorities throughout Wales, to replace the present two-tier structure.
I propose to replace the present eight county councils and 37 district councils with 23 unitary authorities. I am placing in the Library and in the Vote Office copies of a map illustrating these proposals. In preparing this plan, I have observed the district building-block approach set out in my consultation paper, as likely to produce the least possible disruption to Welsh local government, but I am inviting further views on whether that approach should be modified in particular cases.
My approach in identifying these 23 authorities has been as follows. First, I want to restore to the largest centres of population—Cardiff, Swansea, Newport and also to Wrexham—full control over their own affairs.
Secondly, in the rural areas I want to see local government based on the traditional counties, such as Penbrokeshire, Montgomeryshire, Cardiganshire and Anglesey and, of course, we recognise the position of Meirionnyddshire and Carmarthenshire. I shall consult further on whether to extend that approach to separate authorities for Radnorshire and Brecknock.
Thirdly in the south Wales valleys I want as far as possible to take account of the intense local loyalties that are such a feature of the area. Taking account of demographic and other factors, however, I also consider it necessary for some of the present district councils in the valleys to come together to form new unitary authorities.
These are detailed proposals, to which the House will wish to give careful consideration. Let me make it clear that, once the new authorities that I have proposed are in place, I will wish the Local Government Boundary Commission to examine their boundaries to ensure that any minor anomalies can be dealt with as quickly as possible. That is a most important part of the process.
Let me now turn to the delivery of services under the structure that I have proposed. I have made clear my commitment to increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness

and my determination that the real administrative cost of service delivery should not be greater than under the existing structure. My proposals reflect that approach.
I repeat that I am looking for the efficient, effective and economical delivery of high-quality services. I do not want a proliferation of joint-board arrangements to deliver the present county services. I should remind the House, however, that the delivery of the law and order and fire services requires special consideration in that respect. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor—in relation to magistrates courts—will be undertaking their own consultations with respect to those services.
In general, though, I shall be looking to the new unitary authorities to provide the full range of local government services that are now provided by county and district councils, as I set out in the consultation paper. The rapid development of the enabling role of local government, and voluntary co-operation between authorities—including agency agreements—mean that services can be delivered efficiently and economically, without the need for excessive and centralised bureaucracy in large and remote units of local government. I have already had detailed discussions about that with the local authority associations, and I shall wish to consult further about putting in place appropriate arrangements for individual services.
Let me make it absolutely clear that the reorganisation that I propose must not lead to an increase in the cost of local government; that is quite unnecessary. I am satisfied that the structure that I have announced today should cost no more than the present system, and, indeed, should be capable of producing some savings. I shall be looking to ensure that that happens.
One matter on which there has been many responses in consultation is the future role of community councils. My consultation paper made clear the importance that I attach to them, especially in their role as the voice of their communities. It has, however, been put to me that the role and place of community councils in Welsh local government is of sufficient importance to merit a separate consultation exercise. I agree, and I intend to publish a further consultation paper on the subject in due course.
The House will, of course, wish to know about my plans to implement the proposals. Following the further round of consultation, I intend to publish, later this year, a White Paper setting out my final decisions. I shall then present a Bill as soon as possible. I propose to take powers to establish a residuary body to wind up existing authorities' affairs, and a staff commission to protect the interests of local government staff during the transition.
My proposals represent a fundamental change in Welsh local government. I believe that they are bold, challenging and realistic; and they build on a wide consensus in Wales that the time for unitary authorities is now. The local government structure that I have outlined today will, I believe, serve Wales well as we move into the 21st century, and I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is not the Secretary of State aware that his consultation process has been completely inadequate and that the imminent general election should not be the reason for this botched statement made on the back of a Tory central office envelope? Are not the Government seeking to divide and rule, seeking to divide the Welsh district councils from the Welsh county councils on the eve of a general election?
Does the Secretary of State understand that we also accept that community councils are important units of local government?
Have not some of the proposed council boundaries been drawn more with an eye on the electoral process than on best forms of local government? In other words, it smacks of gerrymandering, and the statement is also an attempt to divert the attention of the people of Wales from the worrying state of the economy, the national health service, the education service and homelessness in Wales, as well as from the impact of the poll tax in Wales. The objective behind the timing of the statement is to throw dust into the eyes of the people of Wales to prevent them seeing the real issues at this time.
Has not the Labour party set the agenda for unitary authorities in Wales? Is it not the case that our detailed proposals have been on the table for two years? Was not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor—the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—responsible for the previous mistakes in local government reorganisation? Has not the 1973–74 reform cost millions and millions of pounds which have been wasted? It was a ruinously expensive failure by the Conservatives.
On the numbers of local authorities to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, does he not recognise that his proposals for 23 unitary authorities will not necessarily create the efficient and effective structures of local government which the people of Wales require? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we have proposed unitary authorities in the upper twenties and that we shall now scrutinise everything most carefully? We are not convinced that the proposals will necessarily lead to the most efficient and effective delivery of local services.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have undermined local democracy by taking away powers through the poll tax, and that if that undermining of local government continues, the structure of local government is academic? Would not a fourth Tory term of office—no matter what the structures—mean centralisation, diktat from Whitehall and an end to local democracy?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the new authorities are to survive the test of time, they must be linked to the communities that they represent? Artificial and made-up authorities for merely political purposes will not be good enough. I note the link of, for example, Wrexham and Deeside with incredulity. I have previously advised the right hon. Gentleman not to be so silly. Should he not acknowledge that the north is very complicated? Is it not the case that, as a Secretary of State with an English constituency, he frequently misjudges and overlooks the passionate commitment to community in the valleys, in our steel towns and also in the quarry towns in the north? If he ignores local traditions—wherever they may be—he does so at his peril.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman ignored the consensus on an assembly for Wales? Why is he dragging his feet? Why has he failed even to refer to his tame nominated economic forum? Is it because, as The Daily Telegraph said last week, the Cabinet has thrown it out on the Prime Minister's instructions? Has not the right hon. Gentleman been made to back-track on even the first hesitant step to decentralisation? Is it not a complete waste of money to reorganise local government and not to plan for an assembly?
The statement seeks to divide and rule. It is based on insufficient consultation. It is constructed and timed with the general election in mind. It fails to propose an assembly. There is the whiff of gerrymandering. Above all, it seeks to divert attention from the state of the economy, from unemployment in Wales, from homelessness, from crumbling schools and from the Government's attitude to the national health service. It is a missed opportunity, and at the general election it will be rejected.

Mr. Hunt: There were 10 points there, and the hon. Gentleman helpfully summarised them in his conclusion. The first point was inadequate consultation. I have already made the House aware that I first announced the review to local authority associations in January 1991. I then published a consultation paper in June 1991. So much for the back-of-the-envelope consultations and design. On 24 September, I had a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government, a further meeting on 6 November, a further meeting on 2 December, a further meeting on 16 December and a further meeting on 27 January, with meetings of the structures group, the statistical sub-group and the finance sub-group. Inadequate consultation? There has been extensive consultation.

Mr. Ray Powell: You ignored it all.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) shouts out that I ignored it all. The point is either that there was inadequate consultation or that there was adequate consultation but I did not listen to the hon. Gentleman's points.
The second point made by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was that the proposals were gerrymandering I have pointed out, and pointed out again to the House today, that I am using the existing building blocks of district councils. I am asking the local government boundary commission to look at boundaries, but I have not sought to change the boundaries. I have built on the existing blocks.
The third point was that the proposals were a diversion —an attempt to make people in Wales forget about the economic bad news. I have news for the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. If he carefully scrutinises the newspapers in Wales, he will see that there is a consensus that Wales is coming out of recession. I quote the headline of one article yesterday: "Wales set to lead UK upturn". The hon. Gentleman is losing so far.
The hon. Gentleman then said that Labour's agenda for local government had been in place for two years. I have news for the hon. Gentleman. I have read carefully through Labour's proposals. As I understand it, the first proposal, some two and a half years ago, was that all the country and district councils
should be abolished and replaced with a single tier of between 17 and 25 most-purpose local authorities in Wales for all local government functions.
There was then some discontent in the Labour party about the proposals. There was then a rethink—not proposals that were two years in place, but a rethink.
The latest idea is that there is to be a Welsh assembly, although the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has thrown further doubt on that—

Mr. Alun Michael: No, he has not.

Mr. Hunt: On the proposals for local authorities, although conference—I quote from the document—agreed in 1989 that
the number should be between 17 and 25, we have now decided that the view should be changed and that we should have between 25 and 30 most-purpose local authorities.
That is hardly an agenda that has been in place for two years.
The fifth point is that I am undermining local government. If the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside looks at his proposals, he will see that he proposes a Welsh assembly which would look after, for example, special education, housing, health and community care, and planning and development control. It is also proposed that most-purpose authorities would look after schools, housing, health and community care, and local planning and development control. That is a recipe for utter confusion. I have said that local government responsibilities will continue as before, as outlined in the consultation paper.
The hon. Member then said that I had made a mistake in failing to recognise the unitary authority of Alyn and Deeside. The hon. Gentleman wrote to me suggesting that, and I replied that I would find it helpful if I could see how he envisaged the future of Alyn and Deeside as a unitary authority set against all the other unitary authorities in Wales. I invited him to let me have this proposals—on a map—for local authorities in Wales. I have yet to receive a reply.
The hon. Gentleman's seventh point was that I ignored local traditions at my peril. In fact, I have sought to recognise and strengthen local communities.
The hon. Gentleman's eighth point was that I had ignored the consensus for a Welsh assembly. I do not believe that there is such a consensus. I would merely refer the hon. Gentleman to the referendum, which established by a 4:1 majority that the people of Wales were not in favour of a Welsh assembly. Moreover, that proposal does not sit easily with the hon. Gentleman's notion of local authority control. I believe that his proposals for an assembly would take power and money from local authorities and the communities they serve, and that the system
would be even more centralised than the present system.
Those are not my words but the words of the Leader of the Opposition. quoted on 27 February 1979 in the South Wales Argus.
The hon. Gentleman's ninth point was that I had dropped the idea of an economic forum. I must tell him that I am still considering a proposal to that effect from the Council of Welsh Districts.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that I had produced the proposals with the general election in mind. I hope that people in Wales recognise that these are ideas from a Government who intend to remain in office. I do not intend to stand idly by and allow Wales to return to the failed policies that the hon. Gentleman stood for when he was last in office. I want it to move forward with the progressive pragmatic policies of this Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it is unusual to have two statements on a day on which the main business is subject to a timetable motion. I will allow questions on the statement to continue until 10 minutes to

5; then we will move on to the ten-minute Bill. We must be on the main business by 5 o'clock. May I ask for brief questions—and also, please, for brief answers?

Mr. Ian Grist: Does my right hon. Friend understand that his statement will be warmly welcomed throughout Wales and particularly in the capital city of Cardiff, which never really appreciated or understood the two-tier system? Will he undertake to consider seriously the proposal that Cardiff should expand beyond its present boundaries and incorporate the bulk —if not necessarily the whole—of the present county of South Glamorgan? Will he also say something—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Two points are enough for today.

Mr. Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the proposals. I believe that the proposal for a single tier of unitary authorities represents a bold step forward. I welcome and share my hon. Friend's recognition of the importance of Cardiff of the capital city of Wales. Further consultations will be initiated with a view to defining the northern and western boundaries of the new authority.

Mr. Geraint Howells: May I congratulate the Secretary of State? We have waited a long time for these sensible proposals, and the people of mid-Wales in particular are indebted to him for introducing them. We have all been pressing for unitary authorities in Wales for a decade or more. I should like to make one plea to the Secretary of State, however: will he consider once again leaving the people of Radnorshire and Brecknockshire, who are proud of their identities and counties, separate? I hope that he will do just that. Finally, will the Secretary of State reaffirm his intention to consult people on community councils?

Mr. Hunt: Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he has given for the proposals. He will know of the part played by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—for example, in ensuring the restoration of the historic counties of Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire. I am proposing working names, and I very much look forward to representations about what those names should be.
With regard to Brecon and Radnor, when the hon. Gentleman scrutinises the map, he will see that I have placed a dotted line between the old counties of Radnor and Brecknock, and I will be consulting further on that.
Of course I will consult widely on the community councils. For example, I will be consulting on whether we should maintain the existing law, which requires the abolition of community councils if there is a local vote in favour of that.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The abolition of the artificial tier will be very warmly welcomed in Wales, as that it real devolution, taking decision making to the closest level, especially in my city, where it will mean that Cardiff will again be a real capital of Wales. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that that process will be implemented as speedily as possible and that any review of Cardiff's boundaries will be most minor and rapidly accomplished?

Mr. Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome for the proposals, and I invite the Labour party to publish its proposals in full. I am told that they have existed for two years and I have shown that I do not think


that they have. Will the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside now publish his proposals so that we can scrutinise them? I hope that they will endorse what my hon. Friend has said—that any proposals must recognise the important position of our capital city.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Secretary of State accept that there will be great disappointment in my constituency, as Port Talbot and Neath have a long tradition of serving both their communities well? Are not the proposed authorities too big for some purposes and too small for others? Will there be 23 directors of education in Wales?

Mr. Hunt: Yes. I have already pointed out to the hon. and learned Gentleman in my statement that certain authorities are better off seeing the future ahead in combination. My proposals set out that Neath and Port Talbot should work together as a unitary authority in future. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has said that I should consider the northern boundary of Neath. If there are any detailed representations of that kind as we proceed, I shall be perfectly happy to consider them.
With regard to the 23 directors of education, it was clear that the counties wanted eight unitary authorities, and they made a presentation to me detailing that. The districts wanted 27. I believe that my proposals today represent the right way forward.

Mr. Keith Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 23 unitary authorities that he proposes make an all-Wales co-ordinating authority all the more necessary to discuss and decide upon major strategic planning, infrastructure and transport issues? Will he further agree that the savings that he envisages from a move to unitary authorities would more than cover the cost of running such an all-Wales authority?

Mr. Hunt: I recognise my hon. Friend's strong feelings on that issue. However, I have announced today a very positive step in the direction of returning greater local decision-making to local communities. I would not at the same time want to see any move to snatch back that local decision-making by imposing a bureaucratic assembly running Wales from Cardiff.

Mr. Ray Powell: I know that we are limited in respect of time, but I am surprised that we are trying to ask the Secretary of State questions about a document which, if he wants consultation, he could have produced earlier so that Opposition Members could have seen the boundaries. The Secretary of State has referred to dotted lines and to a map which I have not seen and which, in all probability, no other Opposition Member has seen.
If we are talking about the reorganisation of local government, could some of those boundaries eventually form parliamentary seats in Wales? It is gerrymandering of the Secretary of State in the fag end of the Government t introduce such proposals knowing that, on 16 March, we will perhaps lose you, Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker of this place and that there will be a new Government on 9 April. The proposals will not be accepted by the Labour party, and a Labour Government will undertake further consultations after 9 April. Why waste the time of the House now?

Mr. Hunt: That was not a very helpful contribution. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the consultation

paper which I produced, he will see that I have set out very clearly the boundaries of the authorities under a number of solutions. I have come forward to the House with my proposals. They are set out very clearly. I have received strong representations in certain parts of Wales that the existing boundaries between district authorities should be looked at again. I had hoped that it would be warmly welcomed that I was prepared to undertake a furtherr consultation process in those areas where the dotted lines are shown.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the consensus to which he referred was based on there being an all-Wales elected body and that, in bringing forward that model, he has left a strategic vacuum in Wales, with units that may be too small for strategic purposes? Would not the sensible way forward now be for him to set up an all-Wales elected Parliament and give it as its first remit the review of local government in Wales, taking this along with other proposals as a starting point?

Mr. Hunt: I suppose that I could respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying that that is a premise that could be accepted only if it were intended to snatch back from the new unitary authorities some of the existing functions of counties and districts. I have made it absolutely clear that I believe that the way ahead in Wales is to return closer to local communities more power to the people. The ideas that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward would fly in the face of that.

Mr. David Wilshire: Although I am an English Member—

Hon. Members: Disgraceful!

Mr. Speaker: It is not disgraceful at all. This is the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Wilshire: I anticipated that, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will confirm that I have taken a close interest in this matter from the very beginning, and I would think it unfortunate for the people of Wales if Opposition Members were not prepared to listen to the lessons from elsewhere. Will my right hon. Friend take on board two points from the English experience? First, when he seeks to consult further on his local communities—

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Nothing out of order has occurred.

Mr. Hughes: You have put a time limit—

Mr. Speaker: I have indeed, and the hon. Member is taking time from it.

Mr. Wilshire: First, when my right hon. Friend thinks further about local communities, will he give as much weight to the importance of the views of local people as he gives to the views of local councillors and local authority associations? Secondly, when thinking about whether 23 new authorities means 23 of this and that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a long question from an English Member.

Mr. Wilshire: Will he realise that direct delivery is not the only way of achieving good services?

Mr. Hunt: I realise that my hon. Friend holds differing views from my own, and I am rather grateful to the Opposition for seeking to shield me from my hon. Friend's questions. My proposals represent the right way ahead —taking power, authority and decision-making closer to local people. I have very carefully considered—my hon. Friend has made representations to me—setting up a commission in England to determine the number of authorities, but within Wales we have never had a commission, and I believe that the proposal that I have put forward today for 23 unitary authorities represents the right way forward.

Mr. Alan Williams: I welcome the Secretary of State's recognition of the need to restore unitary status to Swansea and to include the Lliw valley in that authority. Will the right hon. Gentleman address the question that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), because it may also predetermine the shape of the outcome of the parliamentary boundary commission that is due to report in about two years? Would it be the right hon. Gentleman's intention, if re-elected, for that boundary commission to be confined within the district boundaries that he has outlined today, or would it be able to cross those boundaries? It is crucial to know what the decision would be.

Mr. Hunt: Parliamentary boundaries are not an issue that I am addressing. I recognise, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, that there may be consequential changes as a result of the proposals that I am putting forward, but those were not and are not considerations. I greatly welcome his enthusiastic support for the recognition of the city of Swansea's importance within the boundaries that I have proposed.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Secretary of State said in his statement that he was putting the proposals before the Welsh people for their endorsement. What percentage of the vote at the next election would he consider to be a mandate for his proposals?

Mr. Hunt: The proposals have all-party support, so they are not as divisive as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The proposals have been made by councillors representing all parties. It is shameful that the hon. Gentleman injects party politics into a matter on which there is consensus.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Why has the Secretary of State used the building blocks of the districts which were created in 1974? In the area of Clwyd, they enshrine all the problems that we have had since 1974. A Vale of Clwyd tier of authority will be created. It will have tremendous problems, because it is a disparate area and it will have no resources. As the Secretary of State has not proposed any regional government solutions, how will he possibly deal with all the services which are handled on a wider scale?

Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the map which I have published this afternoon, he will see that there are dotted lines around his constituency. The local authority of Glyndwr and people from various parts of Glyndwr have told me that some areas may seek to join other authorities. I want to consider that. That is why I have not reached a final conclusion on those aspects.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in his proposals he has wiped out Llanelli completely? On the map which is attached to the statement, Llanelli's name is completely erased. How does he reconcile that with his professed desire that the proposals should reflect intense local loyalties?

Mr. Hunt: In the last map that I produced, there was no boundary delineating Llanelli.

Mr. Davies: It does not appear on the map.

Mr. Hunt: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will explain.
Today I have introduced a new element into my proposals. First, my proposal restores the much-loved and historic county of Carmarthenshire. However, I recognise that, despite Llanelli's cultural and administrative links of long standing with the rest of Carmarthenshire, it is an industrialised area with a strong sense of community. Therefore, with a dotted line I have delineated the present area of Llanelli. I would welcome the opportunity to consult further about the future status of the existing borough. Hence the broken line on the map.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Do I understand from the map that has been published with the plan that the proposal to split Dinefwr so that the northern half joins Carmarthen and the southern half joins Llanelli has been decisively rejected?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman can see the proposals as I have set them out. I should have thought that he would welcome my recognition of the historic entity of Carmarthenshire. The views expressed in the Llanelli area have convinced me that there may be a need for further consultation before final decisions are taken about its future. As for a proposal about joining Llanelli with the Lliw valley, I decided that I did not want to cross a boundary of enormous historical significance.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the two-tier system set up by the Tories means that there are not abstract notions about local authorities in Wales and that some county authorities have good departments which provide good services? Similarly, some district authorities provide good services. However, both district and county authorities provide indifferent services in other parts of Wales. Who will decide which personnel and which teams should have responsibility for crucial matters in Wales such as the building of roads, planning and so on? Will it be the Secretary of State or the people of Wales?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman highlights one of the paradoxes. There are differing standards throughout Wales, but it is important that the proposals that I have made this afternoon are seen in the context of seeking the formula that produces the highest quality of services. Of course, it will be for the new authorities that I have delineated today to work together to establish the right staffing arrangements and future arrangements for delivery of services in their area. Of course, it will be for the Secretary of State, in the positive partnership that we have in Wales, to ensure that the highest-quality services are delivered.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Secretary of State will know that Newport will warmly welcome the


return to the unitary authority that we had before 1973. But people will be puzzled that, although the reorganisation that took place as a result of a decision by a Conservative Government—I served on both authorities at that time—was ruinously disruptive and very expensive, the Secretary of State has come to the House without a peccavi or a mea culpa to say that he is returning to the previous system. Will he apologise for that?

Mr. Hunt: It is not the same system as that which existed before 1974. I forget the exact number, but there were more than 180 authorities in Wales then. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition that the proposals underpin the historic status of the town and former county borough of Newport. I welcome what he said about that. But he should not belittle the achievements of the existing authorities, such as the county council of Gwent and the existing authorities. I do not regard my proposals today as a victory or a defeat for any one type of authority but rather as the way ahead for the new unitary authorities.

Dr. John Marek: The Secretary of State must know that there is no local enthusiasm for joining up Wrexham with Alyn and Deeside. Will he publish the representations that he has received in favour of that scheme, or at least tell us how many representations were made? If and when he establishes a staff commission, I hope that he will ensure that no grossly large salaries and no golden handshakes are paid as a result of any reorganisation. Senior staff in particular should be relocated and given good jobs at fair rates of pay, not rates of over £70,000 per annum, as are paid at present in Clwyd.

Mr. Hunt: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would accept that my proposals recognise the special place of Wrexham in the context of not only north Wales but Wales as a whole. Historically, the cities of Cardiff and Swansea and the town of Newport were the three main areas of population in Wales. I am anxious to see Wrexham grow in strength and influence in the coming years. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome my proposals on Wrexham.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a staff commission. When I published the consultation paper, there were nonsense stories in the press about thousands of redundancies. I hope that the establishment of the staff commission will reassure everyone who works in local government.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that Newport's county borough status should not have been taken away in the first place, because the authority has the resources to provide a full range of local government services? Does he recognise that the 1972 reorganisation of local government was carried out by a Conservative Government? It cost the earth, and in the end we had a worse formula for local government. Does the Secretary of State recognise, as I am sure the House does, that he is merely going through the motions, and that the real reorganisation of local government will be carried out by a Labour Government with my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) as Secretary of State?

Mr. Hunt: I was waiting to see whether there was any approval for that notion. The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of Gwent are ill-placed. The county council has done

extremely well in maintaining the highest quality of services. Today is not a day on which any one type of authority is defeated. Nor is it, indeed, a victory for any other type of authority. I have sought to place clearly on record in the House the way ahead for unitary authorities which brings together the best of the existing counties and the best of the existing districts.

Mr. Allan Rogers: May I thank the Secretary of State for one of his last acts as Secretary of State for Wales? Far from delineating authorities in Wales, the map, with all those dashes, will mean that he will no longer be known as "Dai Poll Tax" but as "Dai Dots". That is how he will go down in history in the valleys.
My last homily to the Secretary of State is that local government is all about providing services to people. Some of our valley communities are immensely poor. The Secretary of State can shuffle the structures as he will, as can any other Government, but unless resources are put there so that services can be provided, it is nothing other than a paper, and perhaps a dotty exercise.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has a bit of dash about him, but I hope that he does not view this as merely a dotty exercise. I listened carefully to the points that he raised with me about the need for a unitary authority in Rhondda. If he recalls, the initial proposal for 20 unitary authorities included a large authority for the Glamorgan valleys. I recognised the validity of his arguments. I hope that he will welcome my recognition of his constituency as a community with a long and a special tradition.
I am confident that my decision to merge Rhondda with areas to the south will not diminish that tradition. I am sure that communities throughout the new authority will be strengthened through the association, and I look forward to publishing the White Paper underlining that point after the general election.

Mr. Michael: Does the Secretary of State accept that the inadequate answers which he has given in this exchange show that he has rushed out this dotty statement, without dealing with the real issues, simply to give himself and the Conservative party an inadequate fig leaf for the general election?
The boundaries of Cardiff and the vale of Glamorgan are more than a mere detail. So are many of the other issues that he has left vague and ill-defined. He has dragged Conservative party politics into arrangements that should be neutral. Has he not followed the usual central office diktat to misquote shadow Ministers and to misrepresent Labour documents? He has rushed consultation, and he did not listen to what he was told. In contrast, the Labour party has consulted and listened to the people who know their areas and communities.
The Secretary of State says that he will restore one-tier decision-making to Cardiff, Newport and Swansea. Was it not the Conservative party which destroyed the previous unitary authorities? So will he apologise? Was it not the Conservative party that did away with the traditional counties? Will he apologise?
In his statement, the Secretary of State claims to have a commitment to increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. He pretends to be interested in efficiency. Is not the reality that he intends to continue to expect local authorities to do the impossible with inadequate cash from central Government?
Will the right hon. Gentleman not admit that, when he talks of the rapid development of the enabling role of local government, he is signalling the Conservative party's intention—if. God forbid, they form the next Government —to kill local government in Wales and to reduce our councils to emasculated, contract-placing bodies? He still has not answered basic questions about the functions that he would give to local authorities.
The people of Wales should suspend judgment on this document. The general election will sweep away this Government and then my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), as a Labour Secretary of State, will do a proper job, in partnership with councillors and communities, which he and Labour Members understand.

Mr. Hunt: I would have more confidence in the hon. Gentleman's response if it had not been so carefully written in advance. I hope that he studies the pre-1974 position, when there were indeed 13 counties, four county boroughs, 32 non-county boroughs, 73 urban districts, and 58 rural districts, which makes 180 councils altogether.
In the reorganisation, eight county councils were created and 37 district authorities. The county councils suggested to me that they wanted eight unitary authorities. The districts told me that they wanted 27 unitary authorities. I believe that I have found the right way forward by endorsing 23 unitary authorities.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point about my misunderstanding the Labour party's approach, I was not criticising it for consultation. I was criticising his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside for having said that the plans were clear and laid before the people for two years. I am merely pointing out that the Labour party has changed its mind. It may well change it again. I challenge the Labour party to publish its proposals in a clear form, so that the people of Wales can judge.
To find Labour's plan for the future of the Welsh assembly, one has to look at a document called "A Statement on the Future of Local and Regional Government in Wales". Labour's proposals would create the most tremendous confusion with such a regional assembly, and between its new unitary authorities. It proposes that similar functions should be exercised by both. I hope that Labour will rethink its proposals, and will come round to the view that what I have presented to the House is a valid way forward and will receive endorsement from the people of Wales.

Points of Order

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Before I take a point of order, in the presence of the Welsh Members of Parliament, may I repeat how much I enjoyed my visit to Wales last weekend as Speaker of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Powell: I am glad that you enjoyed your visit to Wales, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that you will come in your retirement and when you are in the other place. You are welcome to Ogmore at any time.
My point of order concerns page 2217 of the Order Paper. Could you make inquiries on behalf of the House to find out whether the computer is out of order? In past discussions, you have ruled that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and that all Members are entitled to put questions to the Secretary of State for Wales. You will notice that six questions on the Order Paper were put down by Conservative Members, who were not elected to Welsh parliamentary seats. I am not making great play of that, because we have had discussions and correspondence and we accept your ruling on all issues, especially on this one.
However, I am concerned that, if the computer has not gone wrong, it is passing strange that three Conservative Members who are not elected in Wales could come first, second and third in the ballot, while I came fourth and another Conservative came fifth. I wonder whether inquiries could be made to find out if the computer is working properly.

Mr. Speaker: The best advice that I can give the hon. Member is to watch the computer at work. I assure him that no human hand comes into it at all. I am afraid that it is purely a matter of luck.

Mr. Robin Squire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, a parliamentary colleague passed to me some sheets of paper—six different stereotyped sheets. They have the heading of "The Hornchurch Labour Party" and were found beside a House of Commons photocopier. The letters appeal for assistance—I can see why that might be necessary in Hornchurch. None the less, would you confirm that that is an improper use of House of Commons equipment, which was possibly added to by use of the free mail service, for all we know, and that it is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money for items that can and should be borne only by the parties themselves?
Could you please consider bringing to the attention of all Members and their staff their responsibilities in this matter? It is grotesquely unfair that taxpayers should pay for party political publicity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made his point.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be nothing further to it. That matter is raised frequently, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) well knows. He should draw it to the attention of the Serjeant at Arms. Then an investigation will take place.

Mr. Don Dixon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that I had pointed out the other day, for the benefit of Conservative Members, that there are usual channels to take up such complaints. I am prepared to do exactly that.
I have boxed under the Marquess of Queensbury rules, and I have been in a few street fights in my time—that is why I have a face like this. Any type of combat suits me. If the Tories want to bring that type of case to the Floor of the House on points of order I am prepared to do so. When I look around the House, I see one Conservative Member who has been the subject of complaint. I have already given a complaint about the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) to the Serjeant at Arms. The Financial Secretary had to pay for 4,552 pre-paid envelopes because he abused the system. If Conservatives want to do this, I am prepared to do it every day on points of order.

Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask, through you, whether the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who raised that shabby and sanctimonious point of order, had the graciousness and courtesy to inform the hon. Member involved that he intended to raise the matter of the Floor of the House?

Mr. Simon Burns: What Member?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) is the Member concerned.

Mr. Squire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I clarify the matter, because it is clear that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) did not understand? The offence was not committed by an hon. Member from the Labour party, but by a Labour parliamentary candidate. I am drawing attention to the

fact that the abuse, which may or may not have taken place, was committed not by an hon. Member, but by someone who does not work in the Chamber and, as far as I know, does not work in the House.

Mr. Speaker: I said earlier, take it to the Serjeant at Arms, but I agree with the Opposition deputy Chief Whip that such matters are best dealt with through the usual channels.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four Questions on the motions relating to the Statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put .forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 ( Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

STATUTORY SICK PAY

That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
Question agreed to.

Hydatidosis Control

Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit dogs being fed on raw meat and offal derived from fallen or casualty livestock; and for connected purposes.
I welcome the opportunity to introduce the Bill, to highlight the fact that dogs fed on raw meat and offal from fallen livestock are a major source of a disease that not only costs the farm and meat industries millions of pounds, but annually kills people and puts hundreds in hospital for surgery.
Under present arrangements, a provision by the Government enables fox and other hunting packs to bypass health regulations on the disposal of dead farm animals. Hunting hounds are virtually all fed on uncooked meat and offal from fallen stock from farms, despite the fact that European directive 90/667/EEC requires that animal waste be disposed of by rendering, burning or burial to prevent the spread of diseases.
At present, at least 25,000 hounds are kept in Britain to hunt foxes, deer, hares and mink. Virtually all of them are fed on uncooked meat and offal from farm casualties. The hounds ingest taenia hydatigena tapeworms from the uncooked casualty animals and then defecate the tapeworm eggs back on to pasture while the hounds are out hunting. Sheep and lambs, in particular, ingest the eggs while grazing and become reinfected with the tapeworm, which damages the animals' livers and causes cysts.
Investigations by veterinarians published in The Veterinary Record have revealed that, in a single abattoir, lambs' livers were so badly damaged by tapeworms that the majority were rejected for human consumption, representing in that abattoir an annual loss of £25,000 at 1984 prices. Another investigation published in The Veterinary Record concluded:
Taenia Hydatigena causes very high rates of liver condemnation and it is probable that, nationally, it is now the major cause of the lesions and losses in lambs' livers.
In all reports, researchers state that untreated raw meat and offal from fallen livestock should never be fed to dogs.
The Meat and Livestock Commission claims that such tapeworms cause
considerable harm to the production of sheep.
It adds:
About a fifth of lambs slaughtered in Great Britain are infected with cysts. This loss is caused solely by tapeworms in dogs and is avoidable … Never feed raw meat, offals or sheep heads; feed only cooked meat … Working dogs and hounds are the main reservoir of dog tapeworms affecting sheep; foxes and pet dogs much less so.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Agricultural Development and Advisory Service also acknowledges the dangers of hydatidosis to human and animal health. It points out:
Eggs laid by the tapeworm are passed in the faeces of the dog and this may contaminate herbage consumed by cattle and sheep or vegetables intended for human consumption.
If an egg is swallowed by livestock or humans, it hatches in the intestine and eventually ends up in the liver, where it develops into a cyst. Cysts can also form in the lungs, bones or even in the brain. Records from ADAS state:
on average 12 persons die each year from hydatidosis. In addition several hundred persons have to undergo surgical operations for the removal of the cysts.

In recent answers given to me by the Ministry, I have been able to establish that at least five people died in the past 12 months because of that illness. ADAS advises:
Dogs must not be fed raw meat or offal. It is safer to boil or sterilise all meat and offal before feeding.
I have a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, which states:
Undoubtedly, hounds, or hunting dogs, arc also sources of tapeworm infection …studies by the Ministry's veterinary officers have demonstrated that hounds are frequently infected with a variety of tapeworms, including Taenia Hydatigena and they may contaminate pastures over which they roam.
A further report published in The Veterinary Record stated that an examination of 11 packs of hounds in the west country—seven packs of fox hounds, two of stag hounds and two of beagles—found that all but one were fed on uncooked raw meat and offal. Tapeworm segments were even found in the faeces of hounds wormed every two months.
MAFF has written to the League Against Cruel Sports saying that its officials have regularly met the Masters of Fox Hounds Association. That correspondence stated that it had
brought to their attention the risks which hounds may pose to the industry … and the need to feed cooked offal" However, virtually all hunts still continue to ignore that risk to human and animal health. The Government refuse to order hunts to feed cooked meat and offal only to their hounds, despite the acknowledged damage that the disease causes to livestock and human life and health.
The Dogs Act 1906 makes it an offence to leave sheep carcases unburied because of the risk of dogs finding and feeding upon them and thereby spreading parasites and disease. However, it is not an offence to feed deliberately such carcases raw to dogs. It is an offence under the Protein Processing Order 1989 and the Diseases of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973 to include unprocessed animal material in feeding stuffs for livestock or poultry. It would be a simple matter for the Government to amend the orders to apply the same regulations to the feeding of dogs. However, because the Government choose not to do so, I find it necessary to present the Bill.
The House might also wish to know that The Veterinary Record of 4 January 1992 contained a letter from two experts in the disease who complained that a control scheme in south Powys had been "eased". Mr. T. M. H. Walters, the co-ordinator of the disease control campaign and Dr. S. Lloyd of Cambridge university's department of clinical veterinary medicine warned that that easing of controls might lead to a breakdown, and added:
such a breakdown might first be confirmed as new cases in children.
Hydatidosis is a disease which, if tackled in the way that the Bill suggests, could be eliminated from Britain as it has been from Iceland, which had a much greater incidence of it. New Zealand is also engaged in a similar eradication campaign, with considerable success. Those countries have taken steps to prevent dogs from having access to condemned offal.
It is clear that Britain will continue to suffer human death and illnesses, as well as the loss of millions of pounds to the farming and meat industries, if the Government refuse to ban the feeding of uncooked meat and offal from casualty stock to the 25,000 hounds that run in packs, two or three days a week, for nine months of the year on agricultural land.
I have access to video film and photographs taken last summer at the kennels of the Tegryn fox hounds in Pembrokeshire. Those hounds were kept in a ramshackle hut and pen, which they shared with the rotting carcases of sheep, cattle and ponies "donated" by local farmers. That exposure has led to those kennels being closed, but it is safe to assume that similar conditions exist elsewhere, particularly among the 40 unregistered "fox destruction clubs" in Wales.
On boxing day every year, about 400 hunts assemble in their various local centres. The hunters encourage children to fondle the hounds, which, unused to such affection, are often seen licking the children's faces. Allowing hounds fed on raw meat and offal from casualty stock in various stages of decay to lick and be fondled by children is totally irresponsible. A child need swallow only one egg from the thousands produced by a single tapeworm to be infected by a disease which could result in hospitalisation, surgery and even death.
All the evidence shows that the hidden costs to farming, the meat industry and the national health service caused by hounds defecating disease on grazing pasture and crops must be considerable. My Bill seeks to save the country those costs. Hunt kennels should cook or freeze the meat and offal that they obtain from farmers before it is fed to their dogs.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Bob Cryer. Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Richard Caborn and Mr. Terry Lewis.

HYDATIDOSIS CONTROL

Mr. Alan Meale accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit dogs being fed on raw meat and offal derived from fallen or casualty livestock; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 March and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

Orders of the Day — Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords]

ALLOTTED DAY

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

REPORT ON PROVISION FOR ADULT EDUCATION

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, for each calendar year, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on provision for the education of adults, following consultation with the higher and further education funding councils, local education authorities, designated institutions, appropriate voluntary organisations, training and enterprise councils, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) Any report under subsection (1) above shall set out—

(a) the allocation of resourses for adult learning;
(b) what adult education opportunities are available in each local education authority area and in the area served by each further education corporation;
(c) the numbers of people progressing between sectors, and other agreed outcomes of adult learning programmes, by local education authority and further education corporation catchment area;
(d) the numbers of participants, and the extent to which the participants in educational programmes for adults reflect the whole population served by each local education authority, further education corporation and designated institution;
(e) the Secretary of State's judgement on the extent to which the educational needs of the population are served by higher and further education institutions, by designated institutions and by local education authorities;
(f) the Secretary of State's judgement on the quality of provision and the effectiveness of resource allocation;
(g) the capital programmes committed to the education of adults; and
(h) plans for the development of adult education in subsequent years.'.—[Mr. Fatchett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The one positive outcome of our debates on the Bill has been to raise the profile of adult education as an issue and a service. That has been important, as millions of our fellow citizens benefit from the adult education classes organised by local education authorities and voluntary organisations, and often on a self-help basis.
In Committee, many of my hon. Friends referred to their immediate and direct experience of adult education and the way in which it had provided them with a ladder, leading to new employment, education and help in their self-interest. They also spoke as people who had taught in the service and realised the benefits that they, as adult educators, had provided for others in society. Adult education is an important service.
The new clause would impose a responsibility on the Secretary of State to prepare a report each year, and to provide Parliament with that report, so that we could understand the extent to which the adult education service was secured and guaranteed under the legislation.
None of my hon. Friends would go along with the Further Education Funding Council mechanism as the best way of providing for adult education. In that context, we are looking for a way to lessen what we see as damaging provisions affecting the service. The amendments that we attempted to secure in Standing Committee were all designed with the one purpose of securing the funding of adult education. We listened to the thousands of voices throughout the country, and read the many letters that we received during the Committee stage, expressing unhappiness with the provisions of the Bill. The main fear is that there are no guarantees for the future of the adult education service.
All our amendments were rejected. They were turned down not because our arguments lacked strength but because we have in power a Government concerned only with the general election timetable. They are not concerned to take note of the debate on education issues or about the future of adult education. When we debate the next education measure, with Labour in power, there will then be a Government who will listen to people concerned about the adult education service.

Mr. James Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: I will give way later. We are operating under a tight guillotine. The hon. Gentleman voted in favour of it. Having done that, it is remiss of him then to try to disrupt our proceedings, albeit in the best natured way.
Within a few weeks, we shall have in power a Government who will listen to the voices of students, teachers and administrators. I promise them that that Government will be sensitive to the needs of adult education.
All members of the Standing Committee, including Conservative members, appreciate the importance of the adult education service. The difference between us is that my hon. Friends recognise, and want to secure, the value of the service, while the Conservatives recognise its value but do not appreciate the consequences of this legislation.
In that context, I will take the House through the complex system of funding that the Bill provides. The Secretary of State has created a division in adult education provision, some of which will be deemed to be schedule 2 work. In Committee, the Minister of State referred to schedule 2 work as "national priority work". It was clear from his words that while the Government had dropped the rhetoric suggesting a split between vocational and leisure courses—because they realised that it was insulting to hundreds of thousands of people—they had continued with their assumption that some courses in adult education should have greater priority than others.
That is what schedule 2 is about. It contains the notion, as the Minister of State put it in Committee, that there can be some guarantee of resources for schedule 2 courses. But courses which fall outside schedule 2 will no longer be regarded as national priority courses.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): indicated dissent.

Mr. Fatchett: The Minister may not have used those words, but that is the logical implication of what he said.

Clearly, if he believes that some courses are a national priority, others cannot have that priority. So some provision will find itself in extreme difficulty.
The Secretary of State goes on to say in this extremely complicated system—presumably it would be equally complicated in practice, although it will never become practice—that non-schedule work should be the responsibility of the LEA. That is where the Government's argument runs into trouble. LEAs are under no statutory responsibility to provide for adult education.
Conservative authorities throughout the country have been making cuts in their adult education services. For example, last year there were substantial cuts in Hampshire's budget, so we already know that at local authority level the Tories give a low priority to adult education. Deep cuts in the service are being made in Warwickshire this year. The Secretary of State is not keen to defend such cuts.
That all goes to show that the system relies on non-schedule work being provided but of LEA resources. The first weakness in that argument is that LEAs in many parts of the country, sometimes for ideological reasons, are not prepared to make the resources available. The second weakness is that, because of the poll tax and standard spending assessments, many LEAs are faced with particularly tight budgets. Anyone who has been reading local papers in the past few weeks will have seen that Labour and Conservative authorities have been battling to set a budget and work out their poll tax. That shows the downward pressure on local authority expenditure.
The Secretary of State asks us to believe that, once individual authorities have lost control over further education colleges and schedule 2 work has been transferred to the further education funding council, local authorities faced with scarce resources will then make money available to support adult education. That is a fanciful notion. We already know what has happened in Tory authorities and about the squeeze on budgets in all parts of the country.
The Government's notion then runs into real difficulty. Who will fund schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 work? Will it be funded by local authorities, which are tight for resources?

Mr. Jack Straw: The Secretary of State is searching for schedule 2.

Mr. Fatchett: If the Secretary of State is now looking for schedule 2, that is an improvement on Second Reading, when he did not even know that it existed.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I covered schedule 2 on Second Reading. I am looking up clause 11, because I shall shortly remind the hon. Gentleman of the statutory duty on local education authorities to provide adult education. It is one of the several errors that he has made in his speech so far. He should not make such basic errors, having spent so long debating the measure.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State falls into a trap in his own legislation. He knows that the duty under clause 11 does not mean that individual local authorities have to provide an adequate or satisfactory service. The provisions of the clause can be met in minimalist terms. If the Secretary of State says that clause 11 provides that local


authorities such as Hampshire must expand their adult education services after last year's cuts, that will be real progress.

Mr. Clarke: Clause 11 sets out the statutory duties on local government as they are now and as they have been during the period of expansion of adult education in the past few years. When we were drafting the Bill, I took care to ensure that, although the existing statutory duties will be divided between the funding councils and the local education authorities, no statutory duty was removed. The hon. Gentleman's claim that there is no statutory duty on local authorities is therefore nonsense. The same statutory duty lies on them now as in the past, and it has enabled a general expansion across the country.
Naturally, the different local authorities can make different judgments. Hence Labour-controlled Lancashire is currently cutting back on adult education, and Labour-controlled Nottinghamshire cut back savagely on its grant for the Workers Educational Association in the current year, although its resources for education as a whole have risen by 16 per cent.

Mr. Fatchett: Despite all the words, the Secretary of State's answer to my question seems to be no.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What question?

Mr. Fatchett: If the hon. Lady will listen, I will tell her what the question was. The Secretary of State will not have the power, under that provision, to make a judgment about Hampshire or Warwickshire. His final comment reinforces my argument. He recognises that individual local education authorities will be totally free to make cuts in their adult education services.
One of the arguments that the Minister of State often used was that local education authorities should be essentially written out of post-16 provision because they could not be trusted with the strategic and detailed role of providing it. In Committee, the whole of the Government's rhetoric and argument amounted to an attack on local education authorities. The growth in adult education occurred under the control of local education authorities under a system which the Bill will abolish.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman talks about local authorities' success in expanding adult education under existing statutory provisions. We are restating the statutory provisions in their entirety. We are merely dividing them between the funding councils and the local authorities. Yet the hon. Gentleman says that the same statutory provisions are inadequate to allow expansion in future.

Mr. Fatchett: The point that the Secretary of State has just made reinforces my argument: there is no consistent system. The Bill changes the system by bifurcating the responsibilities. Local education authorities will be responsible for non-schedule 2 work and the funding councils will be responsible for schedule 2 work. It is extremely difficult to see how the Secretary of State can maintain the pretence that that is the same system which existed before the introduction of the Bill. The Bill proposes a change.
We have been promised that the Government will give some reassurance on local authorities' spending on adult education and on standard spending assessments. The

Minister of State promised us that by Third Reading a DES survey of local education authorities would be available—

Mr. Eggar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fatchett: Yes, he did. He said that the survey would be available by the end of February, showing that adult education would be secure. Because of the rush with the Bill, the House has been denied the prospect of seeing that survey. We do not know how much money will be available or the current expenditure. All we know is that the Government are offering sweet words but no guarantees to secure an adult education service.
We have a complicated, bureaucratic system which divides responsibility and considers some courses as being of national priority while others have a lower status. The system depends on local education authority funding at a time when local education authorities are squeezed for resources and under the Bill will lose the ability to manage their total post-16 provision. The Secretary of State asks for an act of faith when he says that the system is secure under the Bill.
I suspect that all hon. Members will have received letters from adult education centres in places such as Devon. Such adult education centres will be larger in terms of adult education provision than the neighbourhood further education colleges. What will happen to those institutions? If they have schedule 2 work, they can ask the neighbourhood further education college to make a bid to the further education funding council, but they cannot make that bid in their own right. Thus they are dependent, despite being successful institutions, on the further education college's willingness to submit a bid to the further education funding council. The institution cannot do that on its own.
Dr. William Waterworth, who chairs the management committee of the St. Clare's centre in Devon, says:
the system is difficult to understand and will be complicated.
He draws attention to the quality of provision at St. Clare's, an institution which may be familiar to hon. Members. He says:
Despite operating in a scattered rural area, St. Clare's has built up a comprehensive adult education programme over the last 21 years. We enrol 1,500 students a year and 25 per cent. of these join courses leading to academic or vocational qualifications. Our overall pass rate for GCSE A-levels, RSA and City and Guilds is over 90 per cent. and about a third of our candidates are awarded grade As or distinctions. All of this is now threatened by the legislation as it now stands.
That letter shows the dangers that exist in the Bill. I will take the House through it stage by stage.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have made a careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that adult education colleges will be dependent on the further education colleges being willing to submit a claim to the funding council. Those were his precise words. That point was raised with me by my adult education college, so I took the trouble of discussing the matter with the chief executive designate of the funding council. He said that he would not permit any further education college simply to try to sweep under the carpet a bid from an adult education college. He said that, if the college did not forward the bid to him, he would want to know why. If there were a dispute between the college of further education and the adult education college, it would be reasonable in the circumstances for him or one of his team to go to the college and discuss the matter in extenso. He


said that there would be no question of further education authorities being allowed simply to bin the applications of adult education colleges.

Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, and I do not deny the words of the chief executive designate of the funding council. He makes almost the same point as Dr. William Waterworth, and shows up the cumbersome nature of the procedure.
I will explain what would happen. The individual adult education centre would have to ask the further education college to submit a bid to the funding council. Time scales are important. The college may well refuse to do so. Let us set that up as a hypothesis and presume that the college is not co-operative. In those circumstances, presumably the adult education centre will take the problem to the Further Education Funding Council, and Mr. Stubbs can then intervene.
Previously, the system would have been that the matter would have been resolved locally by the local education authority. Now there are at least three distinct parties: the funding council, the further education college, and the adult education centre. That is no way to increase the efficiency of the system.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I will take the argument further. We have been talking about an adult education college. In my county there is an adult education service—a countywide service—with a range of individual colleges and services. My county is divided between north and south Humberside, with different further education colleges. There are problems about which college will make a bid and how the bid is to be made for a complete service, not just one college. If the system is bureaucratic in relation to one college, it will be almost impossible in terms of a complete service.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes much the same point as has been raised in many letters to us. The system is likely to be inefficient and to lead to a reduction in the overall provision.
The letter from St. Clare's is important. That successful adult education centre is providing a range of schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 provision. How will that centre be funded in future? It could ask a further education college to make a bid to the funding council for schedule 2 provision—the first mechanism. Let us assume that there are no difficulties there. Some of the work—I calculate about one third—will be through the funding council. The other two thirds will need to go to the local education authority to seek permission and resources. That is a messy system.
As the committee chairman says, at present Devon local education authority, which has a substantial commitment to adult education, for which I praise it, is able to devise a programme and a set of resources to help St. Clare's run an expanding programme. What sense does it make not to listen to those powerful arguments and not to produce an efficient system based on them?
In Committee, we tabled an amendment that would have dealt with some of the problems and circumvented some of the administration. We moved an amendment to allow the individual adult education centre to make a bid

to the Further Education Funding Council. The amendment was voted down by Conservative Members. It would have helped to alleviate some of the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and would have helped many of those who have written to us about what has happened to their service.
As a result of the guillotine, I do not have time to mention all the letters, but I refer the House to some of them. They do not come from just one part of the country and are not merely a lobby organised by the Labour party or a trade union, which is how the Secretary of State often dismisses such opposition. They come from people in all walks of life, from all parts of the country and represent important views on adult education. We have letters from Reading, Leicester, Chelmsford, Essex, Derby, Devon, Yorkshire and Humberside, all reflecting deep anxiety about the provisions.
If, in Committee, the Secretary of State or the Minister of State had listened to the arguments and voices, the adult education centres, of which there are many up and down the country, could have had automatic designation so that they could have tendered the bids to the funding council. That would have helped the position. That system would not have been ideal as it would have created a divided responsibility, but at least we could have made some progress, rather than being faced with the existing position.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Do not a vast number of individuals, companies, education and arts bodies, and institutions of all sorts obtain funding from more than one source? Is that not perfectly normal in this country? That is not normally seen to threaten the future of those organisations or individuals, provided that the sources of finance are sound?

Mr. Fatchett: We have a system that works.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.

Mr. Fatchett: The Government claim that there has been an expansion—an expansion funded under the existing arrangements.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) should have listened to what some of his colleagues said on Second Reading about adult education and, more broadly, in terms of further education. They made the simple point that, if something is working, we should not mend it or change it. The system is working at present. If the hon. Gentleman were the principal of an adult education centre and were told that he might now have to make bids in two or three different directions to raise money for a programme previously financed from one source, he would have some difficulty being persuaded that that was the most efficient way of making progress. That is what we said throughout the Standing Committee. That was what was said in our amendments and by many thousands of people up and down the country who are worried about long-term provision.
That is said in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham. The flourishing adult education centre in his constituency is much better served by the existing arrangements than it would be under the change that is likely to come about under the legislation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that he predicates that all except


Conservative-controlled local authorities are well intentioned towards adult education. However, the snag is that local authorities' standard spending assessment money is never earmarked, but always at large. The money going to the funding council is categorically to be used for one purpose, and cannot be taken away—it is much more certain. In my county, I would far rather trust my adult education students and the funding council, directly or indirectly, than leave the matter to Lancashire county council which has just completely cut off discretionary allowances to those aged 19 and over for a whole year.

Mr. Fatchett: In a sense, the hon. Lady has taken the argument half way. I will take it a stage further. I agree with her that the money for the further education funding council is ring-fenced, so it may be guaranteed. We do not know how much money there is, but we cannot criticise that, as Government programmes are coming forward. However, the other part of the funding for non-schedule 2 work—the bulk of the work of an adult education service in a county such as Lancashire—has to come from the local education authority. The hon. Lady is absolutely right in terms of her argument when she says that there can be no guarantee that individual local education authorities will spend the full amount.
But that is the weakness, not in my argument, but in the Secretary of State's, because to make his proposed system work he has to rely on individual local education authorities picking up the bill. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may find that amusing, but millions of adult education students do not. LEAs have to pick up the bill in circumstances of a tight SSA and a tight budget and in which the local authority, Labour, Conservative or Liberal, will have just lost control of its further education college.
The weakness in the Secretary of State's argument lies in the fact that, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to see how local education authorities can pick up the bill and meet the demands for an adult education service.

Mr. Terry Rooney: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), does my hon. Friend agree that the funding council will probably enjoy the same guarantee of funding under this Government as training and enterprise councils did?

Mr. Fatchett: That is a good point; anyone from Bradford or Leeds will know of the large cuts in TEC budgets.
Once it is clear that the schedule 2 work is crucial work that will be funded through the Further Education Funding Council the signal sent to local authorities will surely be that their other work is of secondary importance.
We debate the new clause against a backcloth of anxiety about the future of the adult education service. That anxiety has not been whipped up for political purposes—

Mr. Simon Burns: It was whipped up by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's attribution to me of power to influence millions of people throughout the country. The fact remains that people who do not vote Labour or Liberal but vote Conservative are worried about this Bill—although they are less likely to vote Conservative in the future as a result of its provisions.
The new clause is all about putting the Secretary of State's word to the test. Let us set up a highly unlikely hypothesis: that the Government win the election and the Bill is passed, whereupon the proposals are implemented. I do not know whether the Secretary of State wants to remain in his office if there is a Conservative victory, but he has said that the proposals will work. New clause I merely builds into the Bill the necessity to find out whether they will. That is a reasonably modest responsibility to impose on the Secretary of State.

Sir John Farr: I know that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to improve the Bill, although he has taken a long time to get to new clause 1. He has just mentioned it for the first time in a quarter of an hour. Can he give us any idea how much the new clause would cost? As I read it, it will provide for an army of additional civil servants. It would be—untypically—dishonest of the hon. Gentleman if he did not provide the House with that information.

Mr. Fatchett: The costs will be minimal. The information, however, is crucial and it would allow us to make judgments on issues about which I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned. This is a modest measure —certainly not so draconian as the hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 7 which would have written out clauses 1 to 61. Our ambitions are much more modest—we are merely trying to get from the Government some information about the future of the adult education service. We need this information. We believe that the Government's proposals for a new system of funding will not work. They will lead to a reduction in the service, which is why the new clause is designed to elicit the truth in the unlikely event that these proposals are implemented, although I doubt that they ever will be.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am pleased that the new clause gives us the opportunity to debate education for adults. The Government have an excellent record of presiding over a great expansion of provision. The Bill gives us an opportunity to improve on that record, and I welcome the chance to respond to the fears continually being raised —that somehow the Bill threatens to check progress of the service or to restrict local education authorities' ability to provide the sort of adult courses about which the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) expressed anxiety.
At one point, the hon. Gentleman rather disingenuously denied that the national campaign on this subject was politically motivated. I do not accept that; it has been sustained for quite some time, although I would not pay the hon. Gentleman the compliment of saying that he had organised it all. I do not think that the women's institutes have been involved for purely political reasons, but I do see the hand of the Labour-controlled Association of Metropolitan Authorities behind the campaign.
5.45 pm
A great number of ridiculous fears have been whipped up. Many who take these courses have been alarmed by what they have been told will happen: it is all total nonsense. It has been one of the sillier campaigns with which the Labour party has been associated in recent months—a highly competitive field that has been, too. The Bill in no way reduces the legal responsibilities of various


public bodies to provide adult education of all kinds; nor does it reduce the availability of public funds from the Government for such education.
The Bill is expressly designed to extend opportunities further. I shall make one final effort to persuade Opposition Members of the basic principle underlying the Bill. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central claims that the purpose of the new clause is to offer some basis, in the form of reports, on which a future Parliament might be able to determine how well adult education has fared under Conservative rule. I certainly agree that in these debates we should be judged by those outside on our respective records, so let us look at the Conservative Government's commitment to adult and further education over the past decade.
During the past 10 years, the number of enrolments in adult and further education of all kinds has risen by about 27 per cent. and the numbers now taking part have increased by more than a quarter. The numbers in further education colleges alone have increased by more than 50 per cent. and approach 1·5 million enrolments a year in England.
Access courses, preparing adults for entry to higher education and virtually unknown 10 years ago, are now available. There are more than 700 in England alone. Partly as a result of those courses, the number of mature students in higher education rose by 55 per cent., or to 216,000 by 1990.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State talks about an expansion, but all of it has taken place under the existing system administered by local education authorities. Will he take this chance of congratulating those authorities on their success: and will he answer the question asked by a number of his hon. Friends on Second Reading: if the system is working, why bother to change it?

Mr. Clarke: I accept that the expansion has been achieved by LEAs and colleges and by all engaged in adult education—and all with the active and practical support of the Government, who have provided increased expenditure leading to the expansion.
Let me underline the practical support that we have given and show what has happened to spending on adult and further education services. First, expenditure on adult education centres increased between 1979–80 and 1989–90 by 31 per cent. in real terms. Spending on further education colleges—here I cannot give figures which disaggregate adults—increased in real terms by 16 per cent. in the same 10 years. That is a substantial increase in public spending on adult education centres and further education colleges and is in stark contrast with the record of the last Labour Government. When Labour last had an opportunity to act, it neglected that whole area.
I shall not dwell for long on the period many years ago when Labour was last in power. I trust that many years will pass before we see a Labour Government again, because we do not want a repeat of the shocking record of the last Labour Government. Between 1975 and 1979, spending on adult education centres went down by 12 per cent. in real terms, and spending on further education colleges rose by only 1 per cent. above inflation.
Under the last Labour Government, adult education was declining and further education colleges were

stagnating. In the past 10 years under this Government, further education and adult education of all kinds have been expanded. The Bill's purpose is to improve on that.

Mr. Pawsey: Given the appalling record of the last Labour Government, does my right hon. and learned Friend find it extraordinary that Opposition Members rise as the defenders of further education colleges?

Mr. Clarke: They do it without shame. When that sector of education was declining, it was apparently the fault of Conservative local authorities, but when it expands it is apparently because of Labour local authorities. Labour's partisan bias on this supposedly non-political campaign is becoming utterly childish and simplistic. When Labour was in office providing the resources and setting priorities, this part of education was neglected and declining. It required a Conservative Government to give priority and resources, and we have presided over a period of dramatic expansion. That is accelerating, because enrolment rates at further education colleges are high this year. The Bill seeks to expand education, and the vast majority of principals agree with us that it is likely to enable them to expand opportunities even faster than before under the Government.
Labour's dramatic contribution to the debate is, "If it works, don't fix it." For the past 10 years, England has had the only left-of-centre party in western Europe which is against changing anything. On most social issues, Labour has no policy worth the name. It occasionally invents a quango, but it resists any reform at the behest of some vested interest. That is about Labour's only contribution. Labour's years in power are a history of neglect of the subject, but our years in power have been marked by expansion, and all that Labour can say is, "Don't change anything. We prefer to keep the present arrangements."
The broader discussions on the Bill have shown that its purpose is to speed progress and expand opportunities. We want to build on our record and improve further the education opportunities that are available to adults. Schedule 2 sets out, for the first time, a list of the courses which we want to see available all over the country and for which we propose national funding. Access to those courses should not depend on where a person lives, as often happens at present. Therefore, we are making the Further Education Funding Councils responsible for securing adequate provision of those courses.
The courses are not, as some people claim, solely vocational. They go a long way beyond that and include academic, access and basic skills courses, courses for those who need to improve their English and courses for the disabled. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, schedule 2 describes our national priorities. They are national, because we shall provide national funding for them and we wish to guarantee access to such courses to everyone who can benefit from them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) rightly said that such funding is a positive advance for that part of further education because at the moment it is possible for funds that are intended in part for further education to be used by local authorities for something else. The principals of sixth form and further education colleges are anxious to have the provision whereby money will be made available to a funding council for a specific purpose and cannot be filched by councils such as Labour Nottinghamshire and


Labour Lancashire for other purposes. That money will have to go into further education. Principals know that we are following for funding councils the pattern that we established for polytechnics, which have had expanding resources and growing provision, and there has been a tremendous growth in education.

Mr. Tony Speller: I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend says and congratulate him on his admirable desire to provide wider education opportunities. However, I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to deal with the more specific point of Devon's local community colleges where the existing machinery works well. Does he agree that such colleges would respond better to local needs in rural areas if they operated on a manageable timetable? I fear the problems of an appeal taking overmuch time while courses are being structured. Our community colleges reinforce the Government's successful implementation of the local management of schools. Because they are locally based, community colleges can suss out exactly what is needed locally for adult education. I agree that funding should come from the centre outward to rural areas, but it need not come via the local sixth form college, which might have a tendency to abstract.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend takes me to my second point—courses which will still normally be funded locally. Under clause 11, community colleges will get funds from the local authority for some courses, and schedule 2 will provide funding council funds. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central tried to describe that procedure as complicated, slow and threatening. I know that there are concerns about that in Devon, Leicestershire, Richmond and elsewhere. I sought to address those concerns on Second Reading and I shall repeat the process.
It is a simple debating device for the hon. Member for Leeds, Central to read out the provisions in as complicated a way as possible and to say that this is a wholly complicated way to get funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) spoke about concerns in Devon and the fear that the timetable would be elaborate and slow. The Further Education Funding Council has made it quite clear that it will have to establish a timetable for dealing with clause 6(5) applications to ensure that there is no chance of worthwhile applications being lost because of delay.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central could benefit from the initiative demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster. He could visit the chief executive-designate, who is well respected on all sides, to go over the mechanics. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) said, countless education facilities are used to getting funds from more than one source. Almost every further education college principal does that already when obtaining funds for various courses. Dual funding is not necessarily complicated. The Labour party continues to speak about such funding as if it is some arcane new discovery, in an unnecessary attempt to sound alarm bells in rural areas. It says that the funding council will not be able to cope with dual funding, but there are perfectly adequate facilities to ensure funding.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State can continue to insult the Labour party because that is par for the course. Why is it that, after Second Reading, Committee and proceedings in the other place, he has still failed to

persuade the principals of colleges and their governing bodies in places such as Devon and Leicester? Is that a policy failure or a failure of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's eloquence?

Mr. Clarke: I think that it is as a result of continual campaigning by those who wilfully fail to follow the explanations, and set out to fan the fears again.
I am being somewhat aggressive towards the Labour party because I do not think that Opposition Front Benchers genuinely believe in the case that they are advancing. They have known all along that there is no threat to the less formal adult education classes, but they have invented legalistic and other arguments that have aroused understandable fears among those who take the courses and those who provide them.
Although debate on this important Bill is timetabled, Opposition Members are devoting a large part of it to an attempt to fan those fears yet further. They have not adopted the simple expedient of doing Ministers the courtesy of listening to their arguments—presented on the Floor of the House and, repeatedly, in Committee—rather than constantly misrepresenting those arguments. Moreover, had they taken the elementary step of consulting the chief executive of the funding council and asking for reassurance about the practicalities, they would have dispelled most of their fears.
Opposition Members do not want to listen to the arguments. It is easy to lark about on the Floor of the House, misreading the Bill and getting the issues slightly wrong in the hope of securing cheap votes. Labour does that because it is devoid of any sensible policies on further or adult education: on this and every other subject, the party is entirely wedded to bureaucratic control by local authorities.

6 pm

Sir John Farr: I am anxious to do all I can to support my right hon. and learned Friend. Given the rate at which we are progressing and the strict timetable by which we are governed, it is possible that we shall not reach new clause 7, which deals with a specific worry affecting my constituency in Leicestershire. Under the new clause, colleges of further education, and the basic adult education system, would remain untouched, and further education colleges would have the right to apply directly to the funding councils.
I will not go into detail, but my right hon. and learned Friend knows what we want in Leicestershire. We have a splendid system there: Her Majesty's inspectorate has visited the area and praised it. Will my right hon. and learned Friend at least tell me that he recognises that that system works, and that it will therefore be allowed to continue to work as effectively as it does now?

Mr. Clarke: I have given my hon. Friend such an assurance before, and I now give it to him again. I realise that the point is addressed more directly by new clause 7 —tabled by my hon. Friend, among others—but the hon. Member for Leeds, Central has drawn us back to it, and it is partially relevant to the report that is being discussed.
I have just been covering the procedure whereby the moneys will be pursued. In my opinion, closer examination not only of the Bill but of the declared intentions of the funding council and its chief executive make it clear that


there is no threat to the system in Leicestershire, the system in Devon or the position of Richmond college, or to the service provided in Humberside.
I shall make one further attempt to explain matters—first, the local authority powers, because they have been challenged, and then the procedures applying to an adult education college wishing to pursue funding council money for the part of its work that falls within schedule 2 to the Bill.

Mr. Morley: I am not convinced by what the Secretary of State said. The anxiety that I have encountered has been expressed by professionals in the adult education system —who provide a first-class service—rather than by members of the Labour party, or any other party.
The Secretary of State has not addressed this point. We are not talking about just one adult education college; we are talking about—in some cases—a full service, with many centres all around the country. How can those colleges bid for the element of funding that they will lose: funding for basic education, access courses and award-bearing courses? How can they plan to maintain the full structure of their services, when they have no idea whether they will receive the money? If they do not receive it, the infrastructure—small centres in rural areas—will collapse, and the service will deteriorate.

Mr. Clarke: Those colleges will obtain a large part of their funding in the ordinary way, from the local authority. It will fall within the part of further education provision —adult provision—that continues to be determined locally. That does not mean that it will be given a lower priority, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. Given the variety of less formal courses that exist, it is much better to judge the position at local level.
To deal with that part of the funding—50 per cent. in the case of the Humberside service, according to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central—the local authorities will retain the powers that they have now. Those powers will be re-stated: they will not be lessened at all. As we have always made clear, the funding will be based on what the colleges spend now. Not only will we maintain the local education authority's duty to provide the courses for adults that are not the responsibility of the funding council; as we have said repeatedly, we will ensure that local education authorities have—through the revenue support grant system—at least as much money in real terms, allowing for inflation, to fulfil their duties in 1993–94 as they had in 1992–93.
Let me repeat that the 50 per cent. that will continue to be provided locally will not be affected by the Bill. That aspect of adult education will not change. Campaigns about what have been described as leisure courses have been organised. The Bill, and the Government's policy, will not affect the present position; nor will it affect funding for such courses in any way. The case made in regard to the so-called leisure courses was entirely misconceived—and remains misconceived, where it continues to be made.
Because local provision and local authorities are involved, authorities will have discretion either to increase or to reduce provision—to raise fees, or to lower them. Some LEAs are raising fees now, and seeking somehow to attribute that to the Government's reforms. The fact is

that those reforms make no difference to so-called leisure courses, or to the many other vital adult courses that lie beyond the funding council's remit.
If a service is being cut or the fees are being raised, that is because local councillors are making their own determined judgments, for their own reasons. There is no point in bringing in party politics—some Labour-controlled local authorities have a poor record of either sustaining or expanding expenditure in that regard.
Another point that gives rise to concern is the fact that adult colleges providing services that fall within the provisions of schedule 2 will look to guaranteed funding council money. As was made clear at length on Second Reading, clause 6(5) explains how a college or service will have access to funds if it is not designated under other provisions in the Bill. Under clause 6(5), institutions maintained by local education authorities that make provision for adults should be able to apply, through the further education colleges, for funds to support that part of their work that falls within the funding councils' remit. The further education colleges must forward their applications to the councils where the provision in question would not otherwise be adequate in the area.
The whole purpose of clause 6(5) is to enable community providers to have their schedule 2 work considered by a funding council. We have not merely stated that as an intention; a number of safeguards have been provided to ensure that it happens. If the procedures are to work effectively, a clear framework will of course be needed. We do not want complications, inefficiency or delay, for—as my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North rightly says—that would threaten essential provision in some places.
The Government will assist by giving guidance on the procedures for schedule 2 applications. A circular letter issued recently by my Further Education Funding Council unit includes the initial guidance for institutions on clause 6(5), and we shall follow it up with further guidance on procedures as soon as possible.
As we said on Second Reading, the Further Education Funding Council will lay down a timetable which will allow plenty of time for the clause 6(5) procedures to work. Local education authorities—and through them, their institutions or services—will be given good notice of when applications should be made. The colleges will be asked to prepare for the applications by making sure that they are well acquainted with all the existing schedule 2 provision in their areas.
The colleges will be given time to consider the applications and, certainly if the descriptions given to me by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), for Twickenham and for Devon, North are correct, I am sure that in most cases where relationships are perfectly satisfactory, the colleges will put them to the council. However, if they do not and if all the suspicions that have been fanned are correct, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is right and they will have to notify the council. The council will not tolerate further education colleges ignoring the provisions of clause 6(5) and failing to put forward well judged applications for services that are accessible either because they are in rural areas or because they merely happen to be convenient in urban areas and people wish to pursue them.
Where a bid is not put forward, the provider—the college or the service—will approach the council. In England it will approach its regional office which, as Mr.


Stubbs apparently said in the meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, will seek to resolve the conflict. It is not necessary to write that into the Bill. There is one overriding protection in the Bill to which the council will have regard when deciding what to do. The council has a statutory duty to ensure that adequate provision is made in different parts of the country.
I am sure that Mr. Gunn, the chairman-designate, Mr. Stubbs, the chief executive-designate, and the people appointed to the Further Education Funding Council will not stand by if people in Devon or Leicestershire start saying that the colleges are not forwarding well-judged applications for schedule 2 funding. The funding council will be under a statutory duty to secure adequate provision in different parts of the country. I do not believe that the procedures that I have described are overly complicated or will cause delay. If for some reason they do not work and if the community provider is still unsatisfied, it is open to the college to appeal to the Secretary of State on the ground that the further education college or the council has acted unreasonably or has failed in its statutory duty.
We can return to these issues, if we wish, when we debate new clause 7. There are perfectly clear mechanisms which people will follow but they can be made to sound complicated. When we discuss on Report a Bill which has necessarily been drafted in legal language, it is easy to debate it in terms which sound unfamiliar to the layman. With the greatest respect, I have been in the House for a long time—unlike most Conservative Members, I can remember being in opposition—and I confess that I have probably played that trick of making something sound frightfully obscure and complicated. But there is no point in alarming people in Devon or Leicester and making them fear that there is no perfectly straightforward procedure to get the funding council and the Secretary of State to sort things out if a local further education college starts messing about and not forwarding applications. We can deal with that when we debate new clause 7.

Mr. Morley: If there is a countywide service, could that service make an application through one particular college, bearing in mind that some of the other colleges in the county would have annexes which would include part of the adult education service?

Mr. Clarke: Again, I am sure that we can correct this later if I am wrong, but a service would not have to go to the nearest further education college. If there were a countywide service, it would go to one within the county but a college would not have to go to the nearest FE college if it feared that the FE college might regard the adult college as a rival. It must go through a further education college in the locality to get the college to hand on the application to the funding council if the college is satisfied that there is a legitimate claim.
I hope that we have covered that issue adequately at this stage. I accept that it is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, who is very experienced in these matters, is very concerned about the state of affairs in Leicestershire, but I believe that repeated debates will at least satisfy people that a procedure exists which will maintain the worthwhile provision needed to maintain an adequate service in all parts of the country.

Mr. Jessel: Where there is split funding for an adult college and a request for capital provision, can my right hon. and learned Friend throw any light on who would be responsible for the funding where incorporation had taken place?

Mr. Clarke: It depends on what the funding is for—that is my first reaction. Again, I shall write to my hon. Friend. For most purposes, if the capital bid is to provide schedule 2 funding, it is plain that one will look to the capital provision that we have made for the Further Education Funding Council. If it is for local services, one will look to the local authority. However, just as money from two sources will not defeat the flow of revenue, split provision will not defeat the flow of capital.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State is opening up an interesting new part of the Bill. If a bid from an adult education centre is for capital, largely in relation to schedule 2 work, is the Secretary of State saying that the centre would have to make that bid through a further education college, or can it make its bid separately? If it can make its bid separately for capital, why cannot it do so for revenue?

Mr. Clarke: If a further education college is incorporated with the funding council, it will make its capital bid to the funding council. If the adult college remains a local authority college, it will look to the local authority for its capital provision. It is the sector that will largely determine the source of capital. Of course, there are provisions under which colleges that do not automatically become incorporated as further education colleges within the funding council's ambit can apply to be incorporated if they so wish, but it is the sector that will largely determine their capital bids.

Mr. Fatchett: I think that the Secretary of State is finding out more about the Bill as we go along. Is the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that if the work is predominantly schedule 2 work and that, if there is a need for capital expenditure on the adult college in, for example, Richmond, that bid must be made through the local education authority—yes or no?

Mr. Clarke: It would, if the college had decided not to seek incorporation; but if it had chosen to concentrate on schedule 2 work, it would perhaps be a straight decision by the college not to seek incorporation. The sector would determine the application.
We have covered the same ground again. This debate is becoming well-trodden ground. It is a popular Bill with a non-contentious purpose—the expansion of further education, of sixth form opportunities and of adult education. Most of our debates have eventually come to rest in the narrow area of complication with the procedures for schedule 2 funding for adult colleges. That is because there is so little real dispute about the Bill among people genuinely concerned about the subject. The Opposition are ideologically committed to local authority management of this matter as they are in almost every other part of education. They know that most people involved in further and adult education disagree with them fundamentally.
The new clause is a red herring. It covers issues of genuine concern in some parts of the country, but I hope that the fact that we have debated it at great length yet again at the behest of the Opposition at the start of the timetable motion will enable us to put fears to rest. The Bill will expand opportunities for young people and for adults in all parts of education and training. I ask the House to accept that, to reject the unnecessary new clause and to enable us to move a step nearer to putting these new opportunities in place.

Mr. Michael Carr: The Secretary of State referred to the success story of adult education under this Government, although he acknowledged when pressed that that may have had something to do with the local education authorities. That is typical of the Government, who like to claim success as a Government success, but who see failure in terms of local authority failure. We do not see that only in education.
It was rightly said that every amendment tabled in Committee was defeated. That was not because Ministers did not accept some of the arguments, but simply because the Government want to get the Bill through before the general election. They can then claim that they did well to get it on the statute book.
Hon. Members have received many representations regretting the haste with which the measure is proceeding. The representations have come not only from councillors, but from the providers and users of adult education and further education. They regret very much that the timing of the measure means that debate will be curtailed and that there may not be the right atmosphere for a considered discussion of the issues.
There may be support from further education college principals for the aim of getting the measure on to the statute book quickly, but they represent only a small fraction of those who have an interest and an active involvement in using and providing the services. I counsel that the wider view, not simply the view of a narrow group, is heeded.
As we know, schedule 2 work is to be transferred to the funding councils, and adult education colleges may apply through the further education colleges to the funding councils for their schedule 2 work. Would it not have been sensible to allow direct application from adult education colleges as many are larger than the FE colleges through which they may have to apply? It would also have been sensible to allow consortia of adult education centres to combine in applying directly for schedule 2 funding.
The same applies to whole county adult education services, which should not have to go through FE colleges. Although the Secretary of State has spoken at great length today to try to reassure people that there is not a valid worry, there is a genuine worry that some further education colleges may be a little less likely to apply promptly if they see the threat of competition from another source.
Since the White Paper was published last summer, hon. Members of all parties have received shoals of letters from people who are concerned about the proposal—from users and providers of adult education. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) referred in his inimitable way in Committee to the pile of environmental refuse around him, much of which was no doubt letters

that he had received on the subject. We all received such letters. The fact that Ministers have made many attempts—

Mr. Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying that letters from constituents or from any one else were lying on the floor in Committee. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that correspondence from constituents is far too important and far too valued to be treated in such a cavalier fashion.

Mr. Carr: I agree entirely. I did not seek to imply that the hon. Gentleman treats his constituents' letters with contempt. I know that that is not the case. I merely referred to the mountain of material, whether on the floor or on the Benches, as evidence of considerable correspondence on the matter. I trust that the hon. Gentleman accepts my explanation.
Many letters have been received. Before I came into the Chamber, I talked briefly with my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He told me that he had received more letters on this matter than on any other since he became a Member of Parliament. Only this morning, he met pensioners in his constituency. The two matters uppermost in their minds were the future of libraries and the future of adult education classes. Ministers have not yet convinced the public, many of whom have written since the completion of the Committee stage, that all is well.
If the new clause were accepted, it would show the people who have written to hon. Members and those who are concerned that the Government's words of reassurance mean something. I strongly support the new clause, and urge the Government to accept it.

Mr. Pawsey: From listening to Opposition Members, their new philosophy seems to be, "If it works, don't fix it". That seems to be a powerful argument for no change and no innovation. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), in whose speech I sought to intervene, referred to what he described as the first Bill on education that an incoming Labour Government would introduce. If he had given way—I was a little surprised that he did not—I would have asked him whether he would confirm that the first Bill on education introduced by a Labour Government would be an abolitionist Bill—a Bill to abolish the grammar schools, the grant-maintained schools, the assisted places scheme and the city technology colleges.
I would have asked him how he would reconcile his "If it works, don't fix it" philosophy with those abolitionist policies. Everyone agrees that the grammar schools certainly work, that the grant-maintained schools certainly work, that the city technology colleges certainly work and that the assisted places scheme certainly works. The problem with Opposition Members is that they cannot see excellence when it stands up and hits them in the face.
There were many comments about the success of local education authority policies. I remind Opposition Members that the polytechnics were part of the local authority empire. They have been freed up, and no one seriously argues that the polytechnics should return to the LEAs.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr). Has he had an opportunity to read an article in The House Magazine by his hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)? I accept the


commitment of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley to higher education and especially to further education. I listened to him with interest in Committee and I felt that he developed some interesting points. Can he tell me why—I will give way—in the whole of the article by his hon. Friend the Member for Truro, I cannot find a reference to FE colleges or to further education?

Mr. Burns: What? It must be there.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend expresses surprise. I was equally surprised. If the hon. Member for Ribble Valley wants to answer the point and to tell me why his hon. Friend the Member for Truro failed to mention further education, I will give way.

Mr. Farr: I do not presume to answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on that. He was invited to write an article for The House Magazine, which he duly did. I suggest that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) writes to my hon. Friend, who will answer him directly.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) acknowledge that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in a equivalent article did not mention adult education—an ignorance amply revealed in the debate?

Mr. Pawsey: When I read the contribution by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) in the same magazine, the only reference I could find was this:
Adult education has already been hit very hard by government-imposed cuts in local authority expenditure and poll-tax capping. The House should block this new assault.
I find that remarkable, given the figures that my right hon. and learned Friend cited earlier. What did that "assault", as it was described by the hon. Member for Oxford, East consist of? It was an assault with money. There was an annual real decrease in expenditure on adult centres of 4 per cent. between 1975–76 and 1978–79, compared with an annual real increase of 3·1 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1989–90.

Mr. Burns: Who was in power?

Mr. Pawsey: I hear my hon. Friend asking, from a sedentary position, "Who was in power?" I suspect that that is something of a rhetorical question. My hon. Friend knows that it was the Labour Government—the same Government who had to bring in the International Monetary Fund to sort out the problems that they had caused. That was the only time in the nation's history when it was necessary to bring in the outside bankers.
Let me continue on the same theme. There was an annual real increase in spend on further education colleges of less than 0·5 per cent. between 1975–76 and 1978–79, compared with an annual real increase of 1·6 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1989–90. If that is Opposition Members' idea of an assault, I wish that people would assault me in the same fashion and pour money over my head as the Government have poured money into adult education.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the quality of adult education very much depends on the local education authority and on whether it is Conservative or

Labour-controlled. Would he like to explain why, in my county of Humberside, there was recently a scandal involving people from Lincolnshire giving forged Humberside addresses because they wanted to make use of the superior adult education facilities—facilities that are virtually non-existent in Lincolnshire?

Mr. Pawsey: I suspect that I should leave questions of forgery to Opposition Members.
The present Bill is another important education Bill which continues the main thrust of the Government's policy—a policy designed to reduce bureaucracy and give additional powers and responsibility to those involved in the running of the nation's institutions. It is a policy that is in marked contrast to that of the Opposition, to whom only the grey uniformity of LEA control is acceptable. I have never been able to understand the socialist reasoning that the only good state education is LEA education.
Just as the Education Reform Act 1988 gave additional powers to parents and schools, and the Education (Student Loans) Act 1989 freed up the polytechnics and cut the apron strings that secured them to the LEAs, so this Bill frees the 450 colleges of further education. I am convinced that power and responsibility should reside more closely with those who are involved in the day-to-day administration. Such a system will enable them to respond that much more quickly to the demands and challenges of students, employers and local communities.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted that I have the support of my hon. Friend on that point.
It should also be remembered that the LEAs are not always the colleges' best friends. Let me call in aid The Independent—not always regarded as the friend of the Conservative party. On 5 November last year, it said:
There is a tendency for LEAs to reduce funds to further education sector and put them into schools. But the provision of funds directly to a further education funding council will mean the funds being ring-fenced.
The Independent may not normally be sympathetic to Government policy but on this occasion the newspaper certainly has it right. Under the Bill, funding for further education will be protected and—not before time—the unwelcome interference by LEAs in the running of colleges of further education will become a thing of the past.
The Government now provide some £2 billion a year for further education in England and Wales. That funding will henceforth be protected. Money intended for further education will reach further education, to the benefit of all those studying in that sector.
The Bill certainly cuts bureaucracy. At present, principals of colleges of further education must fight their corners every year with the officials at shire hall. They must take their place—often a lowly place—in the priority queue for funds with schools and administration. In future, all that will change.
From the visits that I have made to the East Warwickshire college of further education in my constituency, I am aware that there is a wealth of talent in staffrooms and classrooms. The Bill will free up that talent and broaden the vision. It will do for colleges of further education what the 1988 Act did for the polytechnics.
Let me give the House a couple of examples taken from the East Warwickshire college of further education. The principal tells me that he has plans to extend the college's


courses—and not just for local people locally participating. He is going national and will seek to attract students to a much wider range of courses. Already he has pioneered a unique money-back guarantee to any part-time student who is not satisfied with his course. The principal is prepared for his college to be placed on a commercial rather than an institutional footing, and he welcomes the challenge the Bill will present. The freeing up of the colleges will result in a substantial increase in the variety and number of college courses so that they become more attractive to a much wider range of students.
I many ways, the liberation of polytechnics from local authority control will serve as a blueprint for this latest transfer of control from LEA to individual institution. Given the success of that operation, no one now argues that the polytechnics should be returned to LEA control.
In Committee, it was argued with some justification that adult and further education had been something of a Cinderella. Funds had either been sucked into the schools or directed to advanced education, sometimes at the expense of colleges of further education which had become poor relations. The Bill changes that. If, in the past, we have not done enough for young people leaving school at 16, or for adults who, for whatever reason, require additional education and training, the Bill helps to remedy that defect.
At present, the further education colleges take about 360,000 full-time students and 700,000 part-time day students, with another 700,000 part-time evening students. Those students are spread among 450 institutions. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central has sought to dismiss those figures on the grounds that a substantial percentage do not receive a qualification at the end of the course. Although certificates are undoubtedly desirable, the fact that not everyone receives one on completion of a course does not mean that either the student or the course was unsatisfactory. In many cases—particularly in the case of short courses for adults that are designed to improve the quality of life through general education or leisure pursuits—certificates would be inappropriate. The absence of a certificate does not mean that a student has not benefited from the course that he has attended or that he has been wasting his time.
In Committee, much emphasis was placed on the need to continue and extend adult education provision, whether for leisure or for learning. The Committee appreciated that good and useful courses do not always depend on certificates to justify their existence. Do I see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) looking at me quizzically? I shall willingly give way to him if he wishes me to.

Mr. Frank Haynes: No. Just get on with it.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will agree with me that, when control of the colleges is transferred, as it surely will be when the Bill is enacted, from the office of the director of education to the college principals, we will see a change of attitude and a substantial growth in opportunity.
I said earlier that Opposition Members seem to believe that the only good education is that provided by the local

education authority. Grant-maintained schools show that that is not true. That trend, which was continued with the polytechnics, will now grow into a flood with FE colleges.
I was disappointed to learn that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said recently in a speech to principals of FE colleges that, were there to be a Labour Government—God forbid—Labour would repeal this legislation. No wonder the principals who bothered to listen to the hon. Gentleman looked shell-shocked. They were looking forward to developing a spirit of enterprise. Instead, they were promised stagnation—not so much liberation, more a case of renationalisation. No wonder the hon. Gentleman uncharacteristically remained silent in Comittee when I challenged him specifically on that point.

Mr. Richard Caborn: Did the hon. Gentleman issue a press release of his remarks before he made his speech?

Mr. Pawsey: I never issue press releases of my speeches, because they are always so good that the press always pick them up anyway.
When the hon. Member for Leeds, Central opened the debate, he said that new clause 1 was a probing new clause. I believe that it is mischievous, and I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. John Bowis: I am delighted but rather surprised to be called next to follow the eloquent and modest comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), because I would have expected more Opposition Members to be present to participate in this important debate.

Mr. Allan Rogers: We are not participating in the debate because we are quite happy that our local authorities are doing the job. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) forgot to point out that the local authority which is so obnoxious in his area is Conservative-controlled.

Mr. Bowis: rose—

Mr. Pawsey: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. One intervention at a time, please.

Mr. Bowis: I will come back to the local government point, but of course I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).

Mr. Pawsey: I must tell the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that I was a member of Warwickshire county council for about six years, from 1974 to 1979 or thereabouts. I do not believe that Warwickshire county council is in any way obnoxious. Had the hon. Member for Rhondda been present for our debate on 4 February, he would have learnt that I spoke strongly in defence of my county. It is all there in Hansard. I happen to think that in many ways—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough. I call Mr. Bowis.

Mr. Bowis: I feel like a letter box, but I am honoured to pass the message from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
Perhaps I can now declare two interests as I am an adviser to the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education and the Association of College Management. As a former governor of the polytechnic in Kingston, I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said about the experience of polytechnics moving from the local authority nursery to independence.
I also want to pay tribute to the local authorities that nurtured the polytechnics in their early days and so allowed them to become independent. As a former governor of an FE college in the royal borough of Kingston, I pay tribute to the role of local government in Kingston and elsewhere in respect of the way in which local government has brought up our FE colleges so that they are not ready to become independent.
I must tell the hon. Member for Ribble Valley that it is not just the college principals who are in favour of the Bill. It has received endorsement throughout the further education sector. My colleagues have been urged over the past few years to introduce such a measure and they have responded to that urging. The college principals, governors, teaching staff and other staff members as well as people in local authorities working with the colleges have supported the measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said, they are dismayed at the possibility that the Bill might be undone were the unthinkable to happen and a Labour Government elected who reneged on this forward-looking measure.
New clause 1 relates to adult education, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to refer to that subject. I am a great believer in continuing education, which I believe lasts from the cradle to the grave. No doubt some hon. Members will say that it goes way beyond the grave. Up there, in the wide blue yonder—I stress the blue—no doubt there are former educationists and Secretaries of State for Education and Science who are busy providing continuing education beyond this life—and that is as it should be.
Adult education is a crucial part of overall education, and it should be encouraged. I know of many people who, as a result of adult education services, have found new opportunities in life. Many people have discovered quite late in life that they have the ability to benefit from further education as a result of their introduction to education through the adult service.
New clause 1 paragraph (2)(c) refers to
the numbers of people progressing between sectors".
We should be considering that important point. I have said before in this place that I have been impressed by people of all ages who have taken tip adult education courses even in fairly innocuous pastimes such as cake decoration. I was impressed by the fact that some people who took cake decorating courses progressed to FE courses in how to set up their own businesses. Other people who had been kept out of education because English is not their first language have found a welcome mat at adult education and gone on to courses in English as a second language.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is an adult education centre in my constituency called the Percival guild house? I recently visited the house and witnessed the courses available, which ranged from local history and the way in which the canals and railways emerged to practical courses in French, German and other

languages. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is critically important that such centres are maintained. Under the Bill, matters will be easier, not harder.

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. New clause I is useful because our debate has sent a message to local education authorities that there is nothing to stop them providing the excellent provision that they provided in the past. Some people have been concerned about the apparent divide between leisure and vocational work, but there is no reason why that should be anything more than an imaginary barrier, because there are different ways of achieving funding. The message from the debate should be that we expect our local education authorities, good as we may deem them to be, to continue to provide that excellent range of and access to education.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Although everybody appreciates and welcomes the efforts by local authorities in adult vocational and further education in particular, does my hon. Friend recognise that there is widespread concern about the future funding of adult education and what appears to be the intrinsic contradiction in the current legislation in relation to the funding and composition of regional councils?

Mr. Bowls: I accept that funding is important. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central also referred to funding. In future, there will be various methods of funding adult education. The size of resources does not necessarily equate to the quality of provision. I recently handed out certificates at the annual prize-giving ceremony at I he Wandsworth adult education college. In its first year, having been liberated, to use the term that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, from the clutches of the ILEA, that college has not only enabled adult education to thrive but has taught record numbers of students a far wider range of subjects than would have been possible under the ILEA. It was not a matter of resources: it was a matter of the efficient use of available resources for local education authorities to spend on adult education.
When I think of the quality of those courses, I think of the range of students who undertook GCSE art, all of whom managed to attain an A grade. Their ages ranged from 18 to 85. I think also of the quality of the work being done for special needs students. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has made provision for that. Some students never thought of being able to achieve a certificate, but their receiving certificates is another sign of quality adult education within existing resources. Of course we want resources to be expanded. They are available if they are efficiently used.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend mentions adult education. He will know that there has been much concern in many local authorities about the distinction between vocational and non-vocational courses. All resources necessary for vocational courses are coming through from our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Local authorities are receiving funding for non-vocation courses through the Department of the Environment, but they are not making that clear to their local people. People are being told that a reduction in funding is the reason why their non-vocational courses are being cut. That simply is not true. Will my hon. Friend address that point?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is correct. As a former governor of an FE college and a former chairman of an educational committee of the ILEA, I know the pressures that one is under as chairman of education when it comes to resources which, in theory, are being passed down the line from the Government and which other departments of a council are all too quick to snatch up. That is one of the main reasons why we have had pressure from the colleges for this measure. They believe that, with a future separate funding council, that money will be put directly into the sector and not be hived off for the management expenses of an authority or for whatever dubious works a council may have in mind, often according to its political persuasions, or its preferences for spending money on a traffic management scheme rather than on education.
As a sector, FE will have its own financing system through the funding council. As a result, we will give adult education the opportunity to benefit. It is not a matter of not allowing all adult education into the funding sector. We are saying to adult education, "We will permit you to benefit from the funding system that is coming into further education." My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) rightly pointed out that, if funding does not come through as the result of an application through an FE college, a system of appeal can be used to ensure that the decision is vetted. At the very least, there is a possibility that the college would be overruled in its refusal to pass on the application.

Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, in the case of community colleges, there is a problem about direct access to funding councils? There may be a contradiction between further education colleges and community colleges apparently bidding for exactly the same money from the regional council.

Mr. Bowis: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has also heard it and will respond. I do not have community college experience in my constituency or indeed in my LEA, but I take note of the problem in Devon, Leicester, Richmond and elsewhere.
I hope that the Government will look carefully in future at the way in which adult education colleges have or have not the right to apply directly for funding. Under the Bill, there is a way in which they can apply for direct funding if they succeed in obtaining incorporation, but that is not the most simple or straightforward way of achieving it. Some adult education colleges are concerned that the Government should keep that point under review and see whether there are ways in which colleges can get a direct connection. We must not allow education colleges which are doing FE work which is comparable to that done by FE colleges to be regarded as second-class citizens.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State also to consider concern in the FE and AE sectors about the transitional period. That may well be a matter for regulations rather than the Bill, but there is concern that, in the coming year, local education authorities will not spend as much as they might otherwise spend on the sector for the obvious reason they are making a commitment which will be paid direct next year by a funding council. I hope that that point will be taken into account and that those concerns can be put at rest.
The new clause is unnecessary and expensive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr)

mentioned. It is ineffectual because, apart from anything else, its forward planning is based on figures that nobody has seen. It is Government interference in the running of local councils. For these reasons, I oppose it.

Mr. Jessel: I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). [H0N. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I have been asked to speak up, and I am trying to do so, but several colleagues are making their own speeches. We have far too many reports. We have stacks and stacks of them. There is far too much reading matter. Most of it is unread and wasted. We need fewer reports. We should remember the philosophical principle of Occam's razor—do not multiply entities beyond necessity. I shall therefore vote against the proposal that we should have one more annual report.
The new clause gives us the opportunity to debate the merits of adult education and to raise our anxieties about adult education in our constituencies. The growth in adult education under the Conservative Government has been tremendously impressive. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, if I heard him right, that there had been a 55 per cent. increase in the number of mature students in Britain in the past 10 years. The figure is now 215,000 or 216,000. That is a substantial number. It reflects well on the adult education departments of local authorities, of whatever political hue, which have sponsored and supported mature students.
7 pm
My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) are well served by the Richmond-upon-Thames adult college, and we are both tremendously proud of it. It is a first-class college which offers an excellent range of courses. Last year, my hon. Friend and I were glad to sponsor an excellent art exhibition from the college in the Upper Waiting Hall of the Palace of Westminster. Conservative and Opposition Members alike will have been delighted to see that exhibition. It was to a high standard, as is much else that the college produces. It provides a great deal of enrichment and fulfilment of the lives of many of our constituents, both in the arts and on the vocational side—I share the view that it is often difficult to draw the line between the two.
If I thought that anything in the Bill threatened Richmond-upon-Thames adult college, I could not support the Bill, but I do not see any such threat, despite a great deal of scaremongering. Some of the scares have gained some credence among gullible people, but it seems to me that the college is in no jeopardy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes and I have received many letters reflecting the anxieties of some people in our constituencies. My hon. Friend the Minister of State met my hon. Friend and me in the Department on the morning of II February before the debate on Second Reading, and we expressed those anxieties. During the debate, in response to a question from me, my hon. Friend the Minister referred at some length to the particular case of Richmond-upon-Thames adult college. He said:
It is widely recognised that that is an excellent college which serves the local community well. I am well aware of the concerns felt in Richmond about the future of the college, and I wish to put them at rest."—[Official Report, 11 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 903.]


He went on to outline two ways in which the college could be funded in the future. The second was under clause 6(5), whereby the college would apply for funds through another college. I for one, regard that second option as undesirable—indeed, unacceptable—and I believe that it should be ruled out. It is not right that that excellent college should obtain its funding by applying through another college.
My hon. Friend the Minister had outlined earlier the first option, which to my mind is the preferred one—that the college should be incorporated under clause 16, which my hon. Friend said was expressly designed to cover cases such as that of Richmond upon Thames adult college. Under that option, the college would apply for its basic funding to the Further Education Funding Council to be set up under the Bill. The college would he incorporated so that it received its basic funding from the FEFC.
There is no need to amend the Bill to enable the college to receive that basic funding because that is already provided for in the Bill. However, the other part of its funding would continue to come from Richmond upon Thames borough council. That council, under Conservative control until 1984 and since then under Liberal control, has done its best over the years to uphold and advance the highly valuable and useful work of the college. The council's record has been good under both administrations, and I have no doubt that that good record will continue.
There is no reason to believe that the council's intention to uphold the work of the college would diminish. First, we understand that the Bill places a statutory duty on the council to uphold the work of the college. Secondly, there is enormously strong and vociferous local public opinion in favour of adult education. It would be politically impossible for Richmond upon Thames borough council, under the control of whatever party, to desert the cause of adult education. Thirdly, the council has always upheld the college and there is no reason to think that it would stop.
There is therefore no threat to the second part of Richmond college's funding, let alone to the first part of its funding through incorporation under the relevant clause of the Bill. Those who, for whatever motive, try to foment false fears in others act dishonourably. The college has provided an extremely impressive range of courses and an excellent service. I am happy that its future is safe and I am sure that the college will step forward with confidence into the future. I know that that is also the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the new clause because Opposition Members, and especially the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), made certain assertions which he said were the background to new clause 1. He said that the background to the new clause was that Conservative education authorities were cutting their further education budgets and that the whole system under which the Bill was introduced would therefore come apart.
I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central to Labour-controlled Lancashire local education authority, for example. Its budget was increased by 16 per cent., but it has nevertheless cut its further education budget. But I especially wish to draw the attention of Opposition Members and in particular the hon. Members

for Leeds, Central and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) to Labour-controlled Birmingham education authority. Last year, Birmingham city council was awarded £456 million by the Government for education. It spent only £392 million. It chose to spend the remainder on such things as marrying up statues, marble steps for the council building and Caribbean night clubs.
This year, Birmingham city council has been awarded £5 million by the Government and apparently plans to spend only £423 million. It then has the gall to seek to persuade the people of Birmingham that it has increased spending by £30 million. Of course, the richly deserved award to teachers will take up the majority of that increase in any case. The real increase is nearer £2 million. Once again, it will not spend the full amount that the Government have given it to spend on education.
Therefore, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central cannot assert that new clause 1 is necessary because Conservative-controlled councils have cut their budgets for further education and therefore the Bill will come apart. It is perfectly obvious that Labour-controlled local education authorities have treated further education in a scandalous fashion. Birmingham is a good example.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central also made much play of the number of representations that he had received from various people involved in further education and adult education. He might be interested in the example of my college of further education—Hall Green college in my constituency.
I rang the principal and the deputy principal to ask them their views on the Bill, and they said, "We pray you get it through as soon as possible." I have just given the House the reason—they do not trust the local education authority in Birmingham to give them the money which is theirs by right.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend can scarcely be surprised that his colleges do not trust the local education authority, when it is not prepared to spend the funding that the Government make available. The catalogue of wasteful expenditure that he describes is truly appalling. The sooner that the city of Birmingham rejects that Labour administration and brings in a sensible council the better.

Mr. Hargreaves: I must agree with my hon. Friend. I hope and pray that the people of Birmingham will take that decision in the forthcoming local elections.
In the meantime, principals in charge of further education colleges throughout Birmingham will he looking forward to the passage of the Bill and its implementation as soon as possible.
It might be interesting for my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) to know that the underfunding has continued for some years. Birmingham city council has underspent the money which the Government have awarded it for education in the past four years. In each of those years, the Government have given it a substantial increase over and above inflation.
When the hon. Member for Leeds, Central asks why we do not trust local education authorities, I tell him to look at Birmingham. Then he will see why we are trying to do something to set further education colleges free, and to give them the opportunity to thrive in the same way that polytechnics have been given that opportunity. New clause 1 is totally otiose in that process. It would merely add a huge army of civil servants. What would be their purpose


—to act as some form of unpaid research assistants for the Labour party? I think not. The new clause would serve no purpose.
The funding council will ring-fence expenditure on further and adult education—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said—to the further education colleges, where it should go. It gives them the surety that they will get the funds that they have been awarded by central Government. That is the purpose of the Bill, and that is why I commend it to the House.

Mr. Allason: New clause 1 is utterly against all the interests of my constituents. We have a long tradition of community colleges in Devon. While I am utterly opposed to any report being submitted annually by the Secretary of State to the House, as new clause 1 provides, I have concerns about the funding of further education in Devon.
Paignton community college broadly welcomes the Bill. It will do a great deal for adult education. However, there is continuing concern about the funding council. I hope that community colleges will be allowed direct access to funding councils.
I shall not stray off new clause 1 on to the subject of the composition of the funding councils, as I hope that there will be time to discuss that later, but it is important that vocational and non-vocational courses should continue to be offered in Devon colleges. Furthermore, I hope that there would be an element of ring fencing to funding from central Government.
The key issue is who will benefit from the Bill. If it were just the staff, I would certainly oppose it. The Bill will benefit everyone who has the option of further or adult education, whatever the subject of the course they take. It is important that those courses should be maintained, and that naturally boils down to money. I hope that the Minister will take another long hard look at access to the funding councils, which is the key.
7.15 pm
In Paignton and Torquay, adult courses are extremely popular. However, there is great anxiety, especially among staff, that, if there were to be some kind of competition for the limited funds, one college might be able to offer one set of courses and thereby poach students from another. Devon is such a widespread community that we do not have the same opportunities as the metropolitan areas to provide a variety of courses. It is essential that money be provided for those courses, and that the staff who teach them have confidence that what is happening to them does not mean an ultimate reduction in funding.
There is concern about the funding councils, but my hon. Friend the Minister could get around that problem by arranging for community colleges—which are not unique to Devon but are certainly helpful—to be able to apply directly for funds.
Nothing in new clause 1 will be helpful to students or staff of community colleges in Devon. I hope that the House will reject it and will thereby find time to discuss new clause 7, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) and is an extremely important contribution to the Bill. Paignton community college has done sterling service—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not on new clause 7. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would hold his comments until that time.

Mr. Allason: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are discussing new clause 1, and I am especially concerned about subsection (2)(a)—
the allocation of resources for adult learning".
That is my prime concern, and that of many of my constituents and the staff and students of Devon colleges which will be directly affected by the Bill.
Broadly speaking, the Bill is welcome. New clause 1 would not be welcomed, because implied within it is a level of bureaucracy which would make life more complicated, rather than easier, for students and staff.
Reports to the Secretary of State are not the key: the key is the confidence of staff that they have access to the money and that they will not have to compete with other colleges in the same area offering the same courses. Accordingly, I urge the House to reject new clause 1.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution, and I apologise to the House for being unable to attend the earlier part of the debate.
There has been a resurgence of interest in adult education during the past few years, as there has been in many other areas. The adult education school in Bury has a long and proud history. My mother and grandmother attended courses there. The importance of the college was emphasised to the local community last year, when it was under threat of closure by the local authority. A tremendous campaign was organised against the closure, and it was prevented.
Following that success, however, people in the town became concerned about elements in the original White Paper upon which the Bill is based and about threats to the future of the college. At the time, I made representations to the Minister and to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg).Since then, I believe that developments in adult education have been more encouraging, and I have no doubt that adult education has put itself more firmly on the map as a result of the various representations made to my hon. Friend. I see from his wry smile that he acknowledges the impact which various campaigners have had upon him.
I pay tribute to Molly Smith, who has led students of the adult education school in Bury extremely well, and to Cliff Baxendale, the principal, who, supported by colleagues in other parts of adult education in Bury, has also mounted an extremely good campaign.
Pleased as I am with the responses, there are other problems affecting adult education. Hon. Members will note that my name appears on new clause 7, which will be debated later. However, new clause I will not deal with the problems adequately. It merely contains an element of gloss, as it simply requires a report to be made on adult education; it has no substance behind it.
As so often, new clause 1 reflects the Opposition's view that they need not make a solid commitment. It is all a ploy; they raise an issue and dress it up, but they avoid the commitment to further expenditure which is required by Beckett's law on the future of public expenditure under a supposed Labour Government. The Opposition hope to have the best of both worlds.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) raised precisely that point. By the time all the reports had been filled in, one would have written a small book.

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I appreciate that that is the problem. If we wish to do something properly for adult education, new clause 1 is not the way to do it.
The cause of adult education has been raised and given extra importance during the passage of the Bill and because of the efforts that have been made around the country. We all recognise the importance of adult education, but that recognition is not adequately covered by the new clause. My right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues have addressed some of the problems, but others remain.
Like most hon. Members, I wish the improvements made in adult education in recent years to be safeguarded. I also wish to safeguard the opportunities for adults to train through life, be they on vocational or non-vocational courses. That is for people to choose. It is important that such opportunities are safeguarded in the future. I am sure that there is nothing in the Bill that will actively harm them.
I am happy to see that local authorities will retain a degree of control and that colleges will need to relate closely to the adult education schools in their area in order to provide a proper service.
If it were possible to safeguard adult education by the issue of reports, the new clause would be an admirable way to achieve that. Unfortunately, that will not work, and I prefer the approach of my hon. Friends. If I have an opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, on a later new clause, I may suggest a way in which to improve things further.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided:Ayes 192, Noes 291.

Division No. 103]
[7.21 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Canavan, Dennis


Alton, David
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carr, Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Cartwright, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashton, Joe
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Corbett, Robin


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Crowther, Stan


Beggs, Roy
Cryer, Bob


Beith, A. J.
Cummings, John


Bell, Stuart
Cunlitfe, Lawrence


Bellotti, David
Dalyell, Tarn


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelll)


Benton, Joseph
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Doran, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Eadie, Alexander


Caborn, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Enright, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fatchett, Derek





Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fearn, Ronald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Flannery, Martin
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Flynn, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Derek
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Michael, Alun


Fraser, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fyfe, Maria
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morley, Elliot


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Gordon, Mildred
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gould, Bryan
Mullin, Chris


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, William


Grocott, Bruce
O'Hara, Edward


Hain, Peter
O'Neill, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Haynes, Frank
Parry, Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Patchett, Terry


Henderson, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hinchliffe, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Prescott, John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Primarolo, Dawn


Home Robertson, John
Radice, Giles


Hood, Jimmy
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Redmond, Martin


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howells, Geraint
Reid, Dr John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hoyle, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooney, Terence


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian


Ingram, Adam
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Clare


Kennedy, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Snape, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Leighton, Ron
Steinberg, Gerry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Stephen, Nicol


Lewis, Terry
Stott, Roger


Litherland, Robert
Straw, Jack


Livingstone, Ken
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Loyden, Eddie
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McAllion, John
Wallace, James


McAvoy, Thomas
Walley, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wigley, Dafydd


McFall, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McKelvey, William
Winnlck, David


McLeish, Henry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Maclennan, Robert
Worthington, Tony


McMaster, Gordon
Wray, Jimmy


McNamara, Kevin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McWilliam, John



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Aspinwall, Jack


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, David


Allason, Rupert
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Amos, Alan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Ashby, David
Benyon, W.






Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gorst, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hague, William


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hannam, Sir John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butler, Chris
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irving, Sir Charles


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert


Couchman, James
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Knox, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawrence. Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Farr, Sir John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Favell, Tony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lord, Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fox, Sir Marcus
McLoughlin, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Maples, John


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael





Maude, Hon Francis
Shersby, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sims, Roger


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mills, Iain
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, Sir David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Monro, Sir Hector
Squire, Robin


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stern, Michael


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stevens, Lewis


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Page, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paice, James
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Tredinnick, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Portillo, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powell, William (Corby)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Price, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Raffan, Keith
Walters. Sir Dennis


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Ward, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, John
Watts, John


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Wells, Bowen


Riddick, Graham
Wheeler, Sir John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Widdecombe, Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Hon Tom
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Younger, Rt Hon George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. David Lightbown and


Shelton, Sir William
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

UNIVERSITY PAY REVIEW BODY

The Secretary of State shall establish a pay review body for university academic and academic-related staffs.—[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hon. Members will note that the clause stands in the name of my hon. Friends and me and, I am pleased to say, three Liberal Democrats, including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr). It proposes that a pay review body shall be established by the Secretary of State for university academic and academic-related staffs.
The proposition that university staffs should have a pay review body was widely supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The official Opposition were asked about our attitude towards a pay review body in June 1991, and I was happy to reply to the secretary of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the general secretary of the Association of University Teachers that the Labour party in government would establish a pay review body. I shall read from the letter that I wrote to those bodies setting out the terms on which a pay review body for university academic staff would be established.
Since then—indeed, just over a month ago—the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) tabled early-day motion 597 proposing that there should be such a review body. I am astonished that, having gone to the trouble of tabling that motion, the hon. Gentleman is absent today.

Mr. Fatchett: He is in China.

Mr. Straw: I note what my hon. Friend says. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West is an assiduous attender here. Whatever else he may be learning from the Chinese Government, I suspect that the People's Republic does not yet have a pay review body for university academic staff. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) murmurs that there is a review body for everybody in the last state on earth which still practices democratic centralism.
The early-day motion says:
That this House acknowledges the important contribution that universities have made to the country's economic and social well-being; recognises the productivity and efficiency gains that they have achieved as numbers have risen by 8·7 per cent. in 1991; is conscious that Britain's system of higher education is one of the finest in the world and is rightly held in great esteem; recognises that pay review bodies which cover such groups as doctors, dentists and school teachers do, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, enhance professionalism and the raising of morale; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to establish a pay review body for university academic and related staffs.
It was signed by 71 hon. Members, of whom 56 were Conservatives. I understand why the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West is absent—he is in China—but I doubt whether the other 55 are on that trip.
The fact that only two of the Conservative Members who signed the motion are present to debate that important motion shows their lack of seriousness of purpose. We shall look with even greater interest later this evening to see how many of those 56 hon. Members go into the Lobby to support the proposal. I suspect that they thought that they could sign an early-day motion and tell their local papers that they were supporting it, but when it comes to the simple straightforward proposition that the Secretary of State should establish a pay review body for university academic and related staff, on the recommendation of the Minister and through the Whips, all those Members will be dragooned into the Lobby to vote against the proposal. It is highly probable that few of those 56
Conservative Members will even know what they are voting about.
I wish to place on record the body of a letter that I wrote to the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers on 25 July 1991. I said:
After consultation with Labour's Treasury Team, I am pleased to confirm that a Labour government would, as soon

as practicable, establish a Pay Review body for university academic and related staff. This would be in respect of pay. I should like to consider further the question of how issues of conditions should best be settled, and I should be glad to have your views on this, as well, of course, those of the CVCP"—
that particular copy of the letter was to the AUT. The letter continued:
This Review Body would operate in a manner similar to already established Review Bodies, such as the Doctors' and Dentists'. A Labour government would undertake, as in the case of other review bodies, to implement the Review Body's recommendations unless there were clear and compelling reasons to the contrary.
The present government is proposing the amalgamation of the funding councils, and the end of the distinction between universities and polytechnics. We support both these proposals, and would implement them.
This has clear implications for polytechnic staffs. I am therefore sending a copy of this letter to the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics, National Association Teachers in Further and Higher Education, and the Association of Polytechnic and College Teachers to seek their views on future pay settlement arrangements for polytechnic staff. It would seem to me that there would be considerable advantage in having unified pay settlement arrangements for all higher education academic staff, though there are plainly some transitional matters which would have carefully to be considered.
My announcement on 25 July last year that a Labour Government would establish a funding control for academic and related staff in universities has been widely welcomed. The present system for settling university teachers' pay is byzantine. With the revenue support grant, it reminds one of the Schleswig-Holstein issue. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), is a historian and will know exactly what I mean, if not the answer to the problem. The system of committees A and B and their 27 reports is obscure and has not worked to the advantage of the universities or university academic staff. There has been no parity as to exactly who is the employer, nor much clarity about the nature of the settlements.
7.45 pm
The Under-Secretary of State, when he replies to the debate, may say that, although university teachers are paid principally from public funds, their employer is not central or local government but the universities, which rightly have a high degree of autonomy from the Government at a national level. That should not be an overwhelming problem in the settlement of university teachers' pay by a pay review body. Doctors and dentists are not directly employed by Whitehall, by the Department of Health in their case.
Those who work in district health authority hospitals are paid by regional health authorities and those who work in opt-out trusts are paid by opt-out trusts. The fact that their employers are legally separate from the Department of Health has not prevented their pay from being settled by the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body. General practitioners and dentists are self-employed. Nevertheless, the DDRRB settles the parameters of their pay.
A similar if not exact parallel exists in respect of school-teachers. Their pay and conditions are settled by a review body. In the past they were settled by central negotiating machinery under the Burnham arrangements. The employers of teachers in county schools are local authorities and the employers of teachers in voluntary-aided schools are various boards and voluntary-aided trusts. I hope that the Minister will not make heavy


weather of the fact that university teachers are not directly employed by the state, because other groups who are the subject of pay review arrangements are not employed by central Government and the arrangements appear to work well for them.
Another important issue that I raised in that letter was whether a review body for university academic staff should include consideration of conditions as well as pay. The school teachers pay review body is unique in that it is statutory and considers conditions as well as pay. The other review bodies consider only pay and conditions are left for separate, usually across-the-table negotiations.
The specific commitment that I have given on behalf of a future Labour Government is that a review body for university and related academic staff would consider pay alone. As I said in my letter to Diana Warwick and to the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, we would consider whether conditions should also be included in a review body's terms of reference. My initial view is that it would be better for conditions to be separately negotiated and that the parallel with the doctors and dentists review body should best apply.
At present, because polytechnics have been a separate system, their pay is negotiated separately. There has been much need for the settlement of polytechnic staffs pay at a polytechnic rather than a national level. Naturally, there will be transitional problems as the polytechnics become fully fledged universities, both in respect of their funding arrangements—there has been a different methodology for those—and in respect of the settlement of their pay.
If we are to make the polytechnics fully fledged universities with the same funding methodology as universities, it seems essential that once the transitional period is complete they should have the same systems for settling pay. Whatever the House decides is appropriate for one side of the old sector should apply to both. In our judgment, the review body should cover all staff within the new univeristy sector once the higher education funding council is established. A question mark will remain over those Higher Education Funding Council staff employed in non-university institutions. For the sake of tidiness, if nothing else, we believe that the pay review body should also cover those individuals.
We had some interesting debates on the merits of review bodies six, nine and 12 months ago. In November 1990, on the day of the first ballot result of the Conservative leadership contest, the present Secretary of State came to the House and recommended that the House approve the first School Teachers Pay and Conditions Bill, which proposed across-the-table negotiations. I am glad that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is present, as he was in the House on that occasion when we were told that the new version of across-the-table negotiations was an almost perfect way of settling school teachers' pay and conditions.
On that occasion, the Secretary of State made it clear that he was not entertaining any other alternatives, including that of a pay review body. That idea from the Secretary of State disappeared into a large black hole. Some months later, in the middle of April 1991—I think it was 18 April—the Secretary of State came to the House and said that he had abandoned that idea, which he had recommended to the House only five months before, and proposed a pay review body for school teachers. There was considerable debate about that in Committee and in the Chamber. We made it clear at the time that we had no

objection to pay review bodies per se. How could we, when we had happily endorsed the doctors and dentists and top salaries pay review bodies?

Mr. Fatchett: And nurses.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend—to whom I am ever grateful—says, "And nurses." He might also have reminded me of the armed forces—I know that that was on the tip of my hon. Friend's tongue. We had also suggested that there should be a pay review body for ambulance personnel, which the current Secretary of State for Education and Science—then Secretary of State for Health —had resisted.
The argument about a school teachers pay review body was then about the extent of potential control that the Treasury was seeking to exercise over the school teachers pay and conditions review body. Section 1 of the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Act 1991 provides for the Treasury to impose conditions not imposed on any other pay review body and allows for the establishment of the pay review body without discussion with, let alone the consent of, employers or formal consultation with associations representing staff. Neither of those considerations apply in respect of our proposition.
The Association of University Teachers and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals both agree that there should be a review body. Obviously, that is a sensible way of proceeding. I think that the suggestion has the support of all Opposition Members and all Opposition parties, and of at least 56 Government Members. I hope that, in the light of that overwhelming support, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will say that the Government accept the Opposition's proposal and are happy to endorse it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): Pay levels and conditions for lecturers in higher education institutions are currently matters for negotiation between employers and staff, and it is quite proper that they should be so. It would greatly detract from the autonomy of those institutions were that responsibility to be handed over to an independent body.
The Labour party professes to be jealous and zealous on behalf of academic freedom. I do not accept that it can be consistent for the Labour party to claim to be the upholder of the right of higher education institutions to be autonomous managers of their own affairs while at the same time arguing in favour of responsibility for something so central to the management of those great institutions as pay determination to be taken to a central agency. Higher education institutions need to be able to manage their own affairs and arrange matters in the light of their particular needs and circumstances.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention so early in his speech.
The Minister has every reason to know that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is, to a degree, jealous about issues of academic freedom, as is the Association of University Teachers. However, both organisations, particularly the CVCP, have called for a pay review body for academic staff. They do not believe that there is any remote threat to academic freedom posed by that.

Mr. Howarth: In holding these two attitudes, those two organisations seem to be guilty of inconsistency. It would be presumptuous of me to speculate what is going on in the minds of their members—minds of great distinction. It appears that the importance of institutional independence recedes a little into the background of the consciousness of some vice-chancellors when they contemplate the device of a pay review body, which they suppose might be the means to secure more money from the tax payer to pay their staff. I understand the temptation they feel, but I think that there are inconsistencies in their position.
The Government have set up pay review bodies for a comparatively small number of professions in the public sector because of their specific role in particular services. Many professions within the public sector do not have pay review bodies. There is no such body for the vast majority of civil servants or local government employees. Central Government and local government employees embrace among their numbers a range of professions including administrators, lawyers, architects, engineers and surveyors, to name but a few. They do not have pay review bodies.
The analogy with schoolteachers put forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is not at all persuasive. Over the years, there have always been quite different arrangements for schoolteachers and university dons for settling pay. There are important differences between the employers. Local government employs the teachers, but is not involved in the employment of university academics. A locally managed or grant-maintained school is a different sort of employing body from a university.
Universities are large, diverse institutions with important managerial responsibilities for large budgets and various sources of income. There would seem to be no sense in managerial terms in imposing externally determined rigidities on their biggest single cost—salaries.
I emphasise that not having a review body is in no sense a slur on a particular group. The Government value immensely the efforts of staff in higher education institutions to sustain high-quality teaching and research, and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their institutions. We applaud the way in which they do so.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend referred to the diverse funding of universities. Is he aware that, during the past five years, the university of Lancaster has increased its outside funding from £2 million to £8 million because of the excellence of its work? It has been rewarded in that it has received that 10·9 per cent. increase in research funding. That shows that good universities can do well out of the system.

Mr. Howarth: As so often, my hon. Friend makes a useful point. I endorse her praise of Lancaster university and of the way in which it has diversified its sources of funding. About 40 per cent. of the income of higher education institutions now derives from sources other than the taxpayer—a powerful reason why it would be quite wrong of central Government to establish a pay review body to determine pay in institutions that depend to only a limited extent on the resources provided by the taxpayer.
The Labour party appears to have taken up a rather curious variety of positions in review bodies.

Mr. Straw: No, just one.

8 pm

Mr. Howarth: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the range of the Labour party's inconsistencies. During the passage of the School Teachers Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill, the Labour party demonstrated its opposition to the School Teachers Pay Review Body which we proposed and have created. Now that that body has been set up, the Labour party seems to think that it is rather a good idea that the arrangement which it criticised for school teachers should be extended to university lecturers. It is puzzling that the Labour party should be quite so confused once again. I suspect that the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) instruct their research assistants to ring round the trade unions to discover what they want. They exhibit an opportunistic set of inconsistent policies.
For instance, Labour tabled a new clause requiring the Further Education Funding Council to ensure that, in each FE institution in receipt of a grant from the council, appropriate machinery is established for the determination of staff pay. So Labour is against a review body for school-teachers and in favour of one for academics—and it wants a funding council to be responsible for pay and conditions in the furthur education sector. So the Labour party advanced three different solutions to try to appeal politically to three different groups. That is irrational and nonsensical.

Mr. Straw: I do not think it wise of the Under-Secretary to pursue the charge of inconsistency. He is a member of the ministerial team that has told us how wonderful pay review bodies are for teachers, yet despite the support of 56 of his hon. Friends for a pay review body for university teachers, he comes up with extraordinary excuses—I suspect that they were written for him by the Treasury —to explain why the idea should be resisted.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has not followed my earlier arguments. Judgments on whether particular groups of public sector employees or of those paid exclusively from the public purse should have their pay settled by a pay review body are made case by case in the light of prevailing circumstances.
I illustrate the Labour party's woolly thinking in this area by noting that during the recent Committee stage of this Bill the hon. Members for Oxford, East and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) proposed a new clause that would have required my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure proper collective bargaining machinery in the further and higher education sectors. My right hon. and learned Friend would also have been required to ensure that new corporations established national negotiating machinery to determine salaries, wages, terms and conditions. So one day Labour Members want collective bargaining and national negotiating machinery; the next, they do a U-turn and want a review body. The Labour party does not know what it wants.
Government policy on lecturers' pay is that it should be sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate staff of the required quality. There is no evidence of general recruitment and retention difficulties. If problems occur in specific teaching disciplines, they can be targeted through the flexibility in the pay structure that we have been encouraging year by year.
As is well known, we are prepared to examine other proposals that are put to us by the CVCP or by the unions, but we have a disposition to look favourably on a rather more decentralised system, consistent with our encouragement of differentiation between the higher education institutions—each charting its own academic mission, which in turn should relate sensibly to the plurality of the sources of its funding.
University lecturers' pay has increased by more than 14 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Last year's settlement was good for academics. They received 5 per cent. from 1 April, a further 1·4 per cent. from 1 September and an additional 1 per cent. from 1 January 1992, to be used at local management discretion. This must be seen in the context of inflation at just over 4 per cent.
I am glad that our academics have received a real-terms increase in pay this year. We owe them much for all that they achieve, but it would not be sensible to establish a pay review body for them, and I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Carr: I note the Minister's comments about the inconsistency of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Perhaps one of the reasons why it supports a pay review body so strongly is that it does not want to become embroiled in the annual round of shilly-shallying that may result from having to determine a string of local pay agreements. That support is shared by the Association of University Teachers and other organisations.
The Liberal Democrats have been consistent. We favour a pay review body. We supported the introduction of one for the schoolteachers: we would like one in further education and another to fix the salaries of academics in universities and polytechnics.
A pay review body would be independent and fair. Among the groups whose pay is determined by this method are the so-called top people, the doctors and dentists, the armed services and now schoolteachers. There appears to be wide support for determining public sector pay for key groups by that method.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has heard the Minister clearly say that 40 per cent. of universities' funding does not come from the state. The other three bodies that he has mentioned are entirely state funded—a wholly different kettle of fish.

Mr. Carr: I do not necessarily agree. There may be different sources of funding, but the people undertaking the work in the universities are employed by the universities. It makes sense to determine the pay of university teachers, especially those involved in research, in this way. They will have to compete against teachers and universities in other parts of the country. I do not accept that merely because some funding comes from elsewhere the pay cannot be determined by that method.
The Minister himself said that the universities, not contributors of their funds, will determine pay—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The point is that the lively universities such as mine attract more funds and will be in a better position to pay their staff well. I see no earthly reason why universities such as Lancaster should have to subsidise other universities that do not get their act together. We attract research, we attract overseas students,

and we do exceptionally well. We are going up the ladder; I do not see why we should be dragged down by other universities.

Mr. Carr: I entirely agree that Lancaster university is going up the ladder. I pay tribute to it, as I represent a Lancashire constituency myself. Nevertheless, the pay of university teachers will be determined not by those contributing their funds but, under the Minister's system, by the universities. Through the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, universities have strongly supported the concept of a pay review body.
In 1987, the Government recognised that the present system was not as effective as it should be. However, they have not presented any proposals to improve it. The Minister spoke about the salaries of university teachers. The present salary at the top of the lecturers' scale has 91 per cent. of the purchasing power that it had in 1971. Since 1979, university salaries, measured against the non-manual average earnings index, have fallen by 25 per cent. In 1979, a grade 7 civil servant earned the same salary as a non-clinical lecturer. Now, that same civil servant earns £4,000 a year more.
Those three factors show the need to look again at the pay of university academics, and it should be looked at by means of a system that is increasingly recognised as being independent and fair—a pay review body. In Committee, and in today's debate, the Minister advanced arguments against such a body. I urge him to listen to the non-political voices of people in higher education who are calling for such a system.

Mr. Straw: At least 56 Conservative Members have signed an early-day motion that unequivocally calls for a pay review body for university teachers. However, only four or five of those hon. Members are present in the Chamber.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There are only three Members on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady is twittering, as she sometimes does, from a sedentary position. The Opposition are not divided on the matter. We all support the setting up of a pay review body, and my hon. Friends are happy to leave matters to those of us on the Front Bench. There is a raging argument among Conservatives, because 56 Conservative Members have broken ranks and refused to accept the arguments advanced by the Under-Secretary of State. They have added their names to a proposition that clearly calls for a pay review body.
An examination of the names of those 56 Members shows—surprise, surprise—that a whole string of them represent towns and cities with universities. I hope that I can remember the constituencies. The list contains the names of Conservative Members from Bristol. It contains the name of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) who no doubt has academic staff from the university of Lancaster and from the universities in Manchester and Liverpool in his constituency. The list contains the names of hon. Members from Leeds and West Yorkshire, and includes the name of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) who has in his constituency many university staff from the universities of Bradford and Leeds. The list has a surprising connection with Conservative marginals which could be affected by the student vote. [Interruption.] We shall have to send Hansard round.
I am sure that many of those Conservative Members who have signed the early-day motion feel threatened by the election and fear a loss of support from among academic staff. They will have told their local papers how they are standing up for university academic staff. They have said that they will take no nonsense from Ministers, but will fight hard for a pay review body. It does not take much to sign one's name on early-day motions. Hon. Members often sign them without realising what they are signing.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Absolutely.

Mr. Bowis: rose—

Mr. Straw: Whatever else I might say about the hon. Lady, I would never accuse her of that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who always knows what she supports and above all what she is against. It is one thing to sign an early-day motion and another to speak or vote in support of it.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman will not find my name on that early-day motion. He said that it was my motion in Committee which led to the setting up of the review body for teachers. There is a difference between institutions to which money other than taxpayers' money is committed and those which are funded by the taxpayer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that. He also said that he had shadow Treasury approval for his commitments. I have a reasonably open mind on the subject and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us how much the review body and the research that will be needed to back it will cost. I think he also spoke about a commitment to bring polytechnic pay into line with university pay when they become part of the same sector. What will be the cost of that?

Mr. Straw: I shall deal with those questions and then give way to the hon. Member for Lancaster. I would not dare not to.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that his proposition partly provoked the Government into reconsidering the Bill about teachers' pay and conditions. To explain away the Government's inconsistency on pay review bodies, the Under-Secretary of State said that their setting up had to be judged case by case in the light of circumstances. I think that those were his exact words. In one sense, that statement is entirely fair and may explain the position of the Government and the Opposition. We do not say that there should be review bodies for every area of public sector employment: nobody proposes that.
The hon. Member for Battersea asked whether there could be review bodies for institutions which did not derive a significant proportion of their income from public funds. An increasing proportion of a university's income now comes from non public sector sources, and most of that income is used for research. It is not used for routine academic teaching, and certainly not for the teaching of undergraduates. We are considering the core teaching and publicly funded research activities of universities that are overwhelmingly publicly funded. I do not suggest for a moment that the review body should comment on the

remuneration that a specific group of researchers should receive for work that they are carrying out on contract for an individual company or, say, a medical charity.
The 40 per cent. figure is slightly deceptive, in terms of the core activities of institutions. Every university contains a core of academic staff whose job is to teach undergraduates and postgraduates who are themselves, in the main, publicly funded. If they are "home" students, their tuition is paid for by public funds, and some of their research will also be financed in that way. I do not think that there is any distinction of principle between university academic staffs and schoolteachers—or, as I said earlier, doctors and dentists.
Some schools now raise some of the costs of teachers' salaries through raffles, appeals and the like: I can prove that by means of letters that I have received. It is at the margin, but it takes place. I do not place the same weight on that point as the Minister appears to do.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A new point has arisen since I first tried to intervene. The point is not simply that 40 per cent. of funds are provided by bodies other than the Government; staff in universities are much more interchangeable. They may go into industry or the civil service, for instance: they move in and out of the academic world, while schoolteachers tend to stay in the teaching profession.
My original point—which I tried to raise some time ago —was this. Of course it is our duty to consider carefully all representations made by our constituents, but our overwhelming duty is to consider the long-term welfare of the institutions that we represent. It would be all too easy to say to students, "I will vote for you to have much larger grants," but that would mean fewer students, and it would also mean had luck for those who were already five years down the road. Such a move would be popular, and it might mean a few votes for the hon. Member concerned; but he would not deserve them.
The same applies to the university lecturers' review body. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has suggested, it is always easier to sign an early-day motion than to argue the case with, in this instance, a lot of very erudite lecturers, but I believe that this case should and can be argued. I believe that it would be entirely wrong to set up a university pay review body—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Briefly, please.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I will put it briefly. I do not believe in signing early-day motions: I believe in arguing the toss, and getting it right.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Beat that.

Mr. Straw: I cannot. Long service on the Opposition Front Bench has taught me never to try to beat interventions by the hon. Member for Lancaster, but simply to duck.
I do not think that there is more transfer of academic staff in universities than there is in school teaching. A small number of staff move in and out of academic work a good deal, but beneath that is a core that scarcely moves at all. We shall simply have to disagree about whether a pay review body would he appropriate. I do not subscribe to every representation that is made to me, and I hope that


few other hon. Members do; each of us must weigh up the merits of the case that is advanced, and then make a judgment.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) asked what we expected our commitment to a pay review body to cost. First, there is the cost of the additional research that would, I assume, be carried out by the Office of Manpower Economics: I would expect that to be in six figures rather than seven—possibly in five. Such a commitment is marginal, even according to the fantastic imagination of Conservative central office.
Then there is the potential cost of the review body. We have made no commitment in regard to additional resources for university academic staff, simply because of the existence of a pay review body. We are talking about the machinery for settling pay, not about pay levels themselves. I have read out a list of the conditions under which a future Government would consider the recommendations of a pay review body for university teachers, which would be the same as for the review bodies established for doctors, dentists and so forth. According to wording that has applied to successive Governments of different political colours, a Government would be ready to accept the recommendations of a pay review body unless there were "clear and compelling" reasons to the contrary.

Mr. Bowis: What about the polytechnics?

Mr. Straw: I dealt with the polytechnics in my opening remarks. We are still consulting, but, as the polytechnics are to become part of the university sector, I assume that, once the transition had been completed, the same arrangements would apply to them. as to other university staffs.

Mr. Bowis: What about the cost?

Mr. Straw: The same applies to that.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. His arguments were flimsy in the extreme. The flimsiest was his suggestion that academic freedom would be threatened by the establishment of a pay review body. I fancy that that suggestion will produce guffaws, not to say hysteria, in the offices of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in Tavistock square. For a Higher Education Minister in the current Administration to pray in aid academic freedom in defence of the line that he is taking is most unusual.
I am glad to see that even the Minister can see the joke. It was a good try on the part of his officials to make bricks without straw, to coin a phrase, but I am not sure that it succeeded. [Interruption.] I should not have said that. It was a grave error to make a pun on my own name.
The case for a university pay review body is overwhelming, and it enjoys the support' of the 56 Conservative Members who signed that early-day motion. We shall, of course, consult each of the signatories to find out whether he is about to stand on his head and vote the proposal down. The new clause, however, would ensure that university teachers' pay was settled sensibly, without any recourse to industrial action, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 265.

Division No. 104]
[8.26 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Griffiths. Win (Bridgend)


Alton, David
Grocott, Bruce


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hain, Peter


Armstrong, Hilary
Hardy, Peter


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Haynes, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Ashton, Joe
Henderson, Doug


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Home Robertson, John


Beckett, Margaret
Hood, Jimmy


Beggs, Roy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bell, Stuart
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bellotti, David
Howells, Geraint


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hoyle, Doug


Benton, Joseph
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Blunkett, David
Illsley, Eric


Boyes, Roland
Ingram. Adam


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Janner, Greville


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Callaghan, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kirkwood, Archy


Canavan, Dennis
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Lambie, David


Carr, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Cartwright, John
Leighton, Ron


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clelland, David
Lewis, Terry


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Litherland, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McAllion. John


Crowther, Stan
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cummings, John
McFall, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKelvey, William


Dalyell, Tam
McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alistair
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McMaster, Gordon


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Doran, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eadie, Alexander
Martlew, Eric


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Enright, Derek
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fearn, Ronald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flannery, Martin
Morley, Elliot


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foulkes, George
Mullin, Chris


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Hara, Edward


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Paisley, Rev Ian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Parry, Robert


Gordon, Mildred
Patchett, Terry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)






Prescott, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Primarolo, Dawn
Stephen, Nicol


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Straw, Jack


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Redmond, Martin
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Reid, Dr John
Trimble, David


Robinson, Geoffrey
Turner, Dennis


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wallace, James


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N.


Rooker, Jeff
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rooney, Terence
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Short, Clare
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alexander, Richard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cormack, Patrick


Allason, Rupert
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Cran, James


Amos, Alan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, David
Dover, Den


Baldry, Tony
Dunn, Bob


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Eggar, Tim


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Benyon, W.
Evennett, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fallon, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Farr, Sir John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Body, Sir Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fookes, Dame Janet


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowis, John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Franks, Cecil


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gardiner, Sir George


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Burns, Simon
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butler, Chris
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butterfill, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, John


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Ground, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Christopher


Conway, Derek
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney





Hayward, Robert
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Price, Sir David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Irving, Sir Charles
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Janman, Tim
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shelton, Sir William


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knowles, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Speller, Tony


Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Squire, Robin


Lightbown, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stevens, Lewis


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Summerson, Hugo


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maples, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thorne, Neil


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tracey, Richard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Trippier, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mitchell, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Moate, Roger
Walters, Sir Dennis


Monro, Sir Hector
Ward, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Wells, Bowen


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wheeler, Sir John


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Whitney, Ray


Moss, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Wilkinson, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wilshire, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Nicholls, Patrick
Wolfson, Mark


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wood, Timothy






Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 7

ADULT EDUCATION FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES

'.—(1) A community college may, notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of this Act, for the provision of specific courses offering further or higher education to adult persons, submit direct to the Funding Council covering the location in which it is located, an application for financial support, to be given on terms laid down by the Funding Council concerned requiring the applicant to apply such funding only for the specified purpose.
(2) Every community college applying under the provisions of subsection (1) above shall keep and maintain separate accounts to receive such Funding Council payments: and the money in such accounts shall he held in trust for expenditure only in accordance with the terms laid down by the Funding Council as a condition of making such funding available.
(3) For the purposes of this Act, the term "community college" shall be taken to mean a school (whether or not owned by a local education authority) which offers to adults courses of further or higher education in addition to its primary function of providing secondary education to children of school age.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 5, page 4, line 26, at end insert
'or
'(c) an existing service which provides a course or courses mentioned in Schedule 2 to this Act and which is the local deliverer of quality provision meeting local needs.'.
No. 14, in clause 6, page 6, line 21, at end insert;
'or
(c) where an external institution has an existing substantial and significant profile of courses falling within Schedule 2 to this Act, its governing body may seek permission from a regional committee to make application directly to a council subject to conditions specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.'.

Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The purpose of new clause 7 is to enable community colleges, for courses approved by the funding councils, to be funded directly by the funding councils after direct application has been made to them. By establishing that the payments received by community colleges for such courses shall be held in trust for the purpose for which the funding council provides them, that gets round the difficulty about which my hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to me last November, when he pointed out that community colleges do not have a legal identity. Of course, a trust fund does. This not only provides the legal identity, which was, I think quite authentically, worrying my hon. Friend; it also ensures that the money cannot be siphoned off by a malign LEA for another purpose. That other principal worry of Department of Education and Science Ministers is dealt with in this carefully drafted new clause.
Is it desirable that there should be community colleges? We are not talking about something that does not exist.

We are talking about secondary schools—that is their main purpose—which also use their facilities, when they are not using them for providing secondary education for children, for providing a whole range of courses for adults. But, of course, the funding council would not fund the whole range of a community college's adult education courses, only those which met its criteria. There is no question that money provided by central Government would in this way be used for a purpose outside that which central Government intend. That is why I drafted the new clause—I drafted it myself—with very considerable care.
I am aware that there are some community colleges —most notably Richmond—which do not fall within my definition of a community college, because they are not primarily secondary education colleges who provide adult education as an extra. What I am saying is that the community college structure within the pattern of our education makes the best possible use of the resources, not just the resources of buildings, but of the equipment, of the facilities and of the staff. Very often—although not universally—they are in rural areas: not universally.
Plymouth certainly is not a rural area, yet it has a thriving community college. Indeed, its principal was one of the five whom I took to see, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), the Secretary of State very early in September to persuade him to write into his Bill, while he still had time to do so, the provisions which I am now bringing forth. He could, in fact, had he wished to, have thought up means of getting round his own objections. However, as that is, we have to assume, beyond the skill of the parliamentary draftsmen, well, I have done it for them.
It is a particular pleasure to see that it has attracted support from both main parties and others as well. It is in no sense a doctrinare new clause, unless one calls it doctrinaire to try and get the fullest possible use out of educational facilities rather than leaving them to stand idle when they need not do so in evenings. It also gets round in rural areas the undeniable problems of the changing—rapidly changing—pattern of public transportation.
The task, without this new clause, placed by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. and learned Friend, who is not gracing us with his presence tonight, on FE colleges is a very formidable one indeed because the FE college to whom community colleges will otherwise have to make their applications has to know about their accessibility and the accessibility of the community colleges by public transport. Because public transport can alter its pattern or, indeed, disappear after a week, the gift of prophecy is required, not just hard work to acquire knowledge.
8.45 pm
It is also, as I pointed out on Second Reading, necessary for the FE college not just to know what it is intending to put on itself, but to know what other FE colleges are putting on. That is quite a task, because the other FE colleges will not know what they are putting on until the course has been advertised and they know whether they have got a high enough response to decide to put it on rather than not to put it on. This is the reality.
Yet before that is known, the FE college which has to handle the community college's applications has to exercise this quite astonishing degree of prophetic power, so that it can either forward it, saying in good faith to the funding council that it does not think—it cannot know —that there is adequate provision for the course


concerned without the community college putting it on; or that there is not adequate public transport to get potential students from the area where the community college is to the location where the FE college concerned is—or, hypothetically, another FE college. This is the problem it is going to be faced with.
I do not need to speak at any further length, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I really deployed the case for this on Second Reading. That case is unchanged. What I have had since then is a large number of letters from community colleges outside Devon—of course, I have been dealing with community colleges inside Devon before, but I have now had letters from community colleges all over the place where, frankly, I did not know that they existed, and very helpful some of those letters have been too.
I will end again by saying that I have been at great pains to meet the specific objections which the Minister of State wrote in his letter as recently as last November to me. Those objections cannot apply to new clause 7. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend's response will be one of gratitude and acceptance. He will know that, if this is accepted and added to the Bill tonight, it does not reopen the whole Bill in another place. It only opens this particular new clause to acceptance, rejection or amendment. Since I do not doubt that there is a majority for it as it is in the other place, there will be every incentive for them to hasten it back here rather than to hold it up so that they lose what they have given plenty of evidence of what, in fact, they want—namely, a provision of this kind in the Bill.

Mr. Carr: I do not intend to speak for long—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman looks lonely.

Mr. Carr: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) for being concerned about my apparent loneliness; I am greatly touched.
I do not propose to make a lengthy speech because the hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) argued his case admirably. Ever since I was a practising teacher—long before I came to this place— I have been surprised that the model offered by community schools and colleges has not been followed elsewhere. Many authorities and areas—particularly rural areas—would benefit from having community colleges.
The community colleges offer a range of opportunities for adults to return to and continue with their education. They also provide a focal point for many other community activities. Although we are not here to discuss those activities now, it is worth mentioning that the community schools and colleges contribute more to the communities in which they are located than merely the provision of educational opportunities.
Let us consider the schedule 2 provision that community colleges seek to make. New clause 7 certainly sets the matter out simply. There will be no problem about maintaining separate accounts. We heard from Ministers earlier about the receipt of funding for higher education institutions from a number of different sources. The arrangements do not appear to present a problem in respect of higher education institutions and there is no reason why they should present a problem here. The new clause will give community colleges the right to apply direct to the funding councils in respect of schedule 2 courses.
Many adults progress from community colleges to follow award-bearing vocational courses and, in rural areas, the Bill as drafted sheds some doubt over those arrangements. I am not from Devon and I am not familiar with Devon's pattern of provision, but I am assured, in letters that I have received from Devon, that the community colleges there are widely supported and highly regarded by those whom they serve. Right across the community, and irrespective of political or other affiliation, there is a desire to ensure that the colleges continue to provide the excellent education facilities that they offer at present.
The Government have rightly given flexibility to schools through the local management arrangements. Despite Ministers' rhetoric about decentralisation and the devolved administration of educational establishments, the Bill is a centralising measure, in the sense that it gives powers to funding councils that are answerable to Ministers. The new clause recognises the role that the community colleges have played and the fact that they need to be separately funded from further education colleges.

Sir John Farr: I support the new clause so ably advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop). Fortunately, my amendment No. 6 has been grouped with it. That gives me an opportunity not only to explain my support for my hon. Friend's proposal but to touch upon the real concerns that we still have in Leicestershire.
I say "still" because my hon. Friend the Minister of State was kind enough to see me on two occasions with two delegations of Leicestershire Members. On the first occasion, we said, in a nutshell, that we wanted amendment No. 6—or, rather, an amendment identical to that amendment. He said, "Come back with your experts and convince us." A week later, my hon. Friend was kind enough to see several of my hon. Friends representing Leicestershire constituencies, together with our chairmen of governors and our community college and adult basic education principals.
I think that we won the argument, and at the time I was confident. I was utterly shocked to learn a couple of weeks after our last meeting with my hon. Friend that the Bill was to proceed in its present form. In view of the fears that are felt in Leicestershire and elsewhere in the country—colleagues from East Anglia and Essex are also a little concerned about the consequences of the Bill as drafted —the least we expected was that my hon. Friend would proceed with the higher education part of the Bill and leave the further education part for further reflection and consideration. He did not take that course, and I therefore have no option but to support the new clause.
As I explained, amendment No. 6 is a chrysalised version of the original amendment which I submitted to my hon. Friend the Minister of State before Christmas. It is the amendment we wanted and the one we talked about when we were lucky enough to see my hon. Friend in January and February.
Let me explain why we wanted the amendment. In Leicestershire we have a highly advanced system of adult basic education as of right. We are proud of our system of one-to-one education in the home and feel that it is something on which we should build. Her Majesty's inspectors have recently examined our adult basic


education system in the county and say in their report—of which 1 have a copy—that it is the sort of system that should be built upon.
I come now to further education, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton spoke so ably. In Market Harborough, we have a community education centre called Welland Park community college. The buildings are in full-time educational use. As soon as the kids from the local secondary school go home at tea time, the FE college takes over. Full use is made of those fine buildings, for the benefit of the community.
After I went to see my hon. Friend the Minister with my experts from the county, I had a meeting with them and they told me that they felt that they would lose unless changes were made in the Bill. They listened carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading. In relation to provisions in clause 5 which I have mentioned, he referred to parts of clause 6. We had a further meeting in Leicestershire and the education experts considered what was said. They felt that, unless specific mention was made somewhere in the Bill and colleges of further education had direct access to the Further Education Funding Council, we would lose out.

Mr. Fatchett: I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. I know the Leicestershire system very well, as I was the parliamentary candidate for Bosworth in the 1979 general election and I got to know Leicestershire very well. I lost on that occasion and I am not sure what that says about the people of Leicestershire. However, the adult education service and the community colleges in Leicestershire were supported by all the electorate and all political parties. It is interesting to note in Leicestershire the extent to which the development of the community colleges has occurred not on a partisan basis but across all three political parties, largely because of the nature of the local authority.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Leicestershire has a hung or balanced local authority. For many years, no one party has had overall control. The adult basic education structure and further education structure in the county has blossomed so much because the three parties have got together around the committee table and done what is best for the people who created that balanced authority.
9 pm
The purpose of amendment No. 6 is to encourage funding councils to recognise and retain existing high-quality provision such as free-standing adult basic education and English as a second language schemes in Leicestershire which have a structure that meets the needs of local users.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) came with me to meet my hon. Friend the Minister. However, there are still real fears that, as a result of the Bill, the county will lose out in respect of its present highly regarded situation.
There has been much comment about the damage that may be caused to the county. As my hon. Friend the member for Tiverton said, we do not have a system in Leicestershire that is based specifically on FE. Some of the

education takes place in community colleges and some in students' homes, in village halls, in very small groups or, quite frequently, on a one-to-one basis in the home. The purpose of our FE structure is to build up the confidence of people who found school difficult and to whom a classroom atmosphere has always been alien. That is why I will vote in favour of new clause 7.
I want to finish by leaving with the House a message contained in a letter that I have just received from Mr. Lee, the head of community education at Welland Park community college, after he and I had the benefit to meet my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He wrote:
The Government would create a lot of goodwill if they allowed selective other institutions—ie Welland Park college —to have direct access to the funding councils.
I endorse that request and nothing that my hon. Friend the Minister said has led me to change my view that we, in Leicestershire, have something that is too precious to lose. I will vote for the new clause.

Mr. Morley: I welcome amendment No. 14 and give it my full support. I cannot understand why the Minister of State continues to say that there is no problem in community colleges, adult education colleges or adult education consortia which can go to various further education colleges and make applications. If they could go through that system, it would surely make a lot more sense to accept the amendment.
It worries me that the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and his hon. Friends have gone along to the Minister of State with local experts, local people and principals of adult education colleges and community colleges to put that point. I am sure that they put their point fairly and professionally in a non-partisan manner, but they have been completely ignored. That is what worries me about the thrust of the Bill. If there are issues in it that the Government consider worthy, why do they not listen to the reasonable arguments about securing important parts of the adult education service, whether it be the community college side or the adult education service?
I fail to understand why the Government cannot allow those organisations to make their own bids in the same way as a sixth form college or a further education college would. Why should they be treated in that way? I do not accept the Minister of State's assurances. We have already seen the Secretary of State floundering when answering a question by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) about capital allocation and how it will work.
I now refer to the adult education service on a countywide basis. Some very important difficulties have not yet been cleared up, or I certainly have not heard the answers. I appreciate that the Secretary of State tried to be helpful in dealing with some of the points that I raised with him, but he did not satisfactorily answer my question. For example, if there is a countywide service and more than one community college, if they have to make a bid to the existing FE college, which FE college will it be? In the case of community colleges, does it have to be the nearest FE college? The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say that they could channel a bid through one college. I take that as a helpful clarification of what can be done.
The Humberside adult education service is bigger than most of the FE colleges in the county. It is a matter of how the bid is channelled through the colleges. In my constituency, the adult education service has several adult education centres. One of those centres is in a building


known as Ancholme house. The building is owned by the FE college, but the adult education service operates within that building and provides a range of services, including basic education, which is actually being taken away from it by the Bill. There is a further complication. To get the service back, it would have to bid possibly through the very college which has the service within its own buildings. One can see the potential for complications and difficulties in such a situation.
There is no doubt about the value of adult education in community colleges or consortia. That point has been made time and again. It is not good enough for the Government to say that there will be no changes and that every level of service will be guaranteed. At present, they are not in a position to say that because of the way those colleges will have to bid. The amendment would safeguard community colleges at least and make the position much clearer and more coherent in respect of obtaining funding. For adult education consortia, there is still a worry about bidding and how they will obtain money.
The Minister of State fails to understand that, with a countywide service, a consortium and some community colleges which will be part of such a consortium, the service is provided on the basis of the total number of courses. The service is staffed to meet those courses and it is resourced to meet those courses. Under the proposals, in my county of Humberside 50 per cent. of those courses would be lost and would go technically under the control of the colleges of further education. They may or may not be given back to the adult education service as part of its bid. We do not know: no one knows. The Minister does not know, and I certainly do not know. The service does not know.
The adult education service has an infrastructure of adult education centres. I went round the one in Priory road in my constituency recently and I have visited the one in Ancholme house. I saw the nature and range of the work that the adult education service does. If the service loses half its staffing and half its funding, the county council LEA will not be able to maintain all those centres, whether in villages, towns or cities. The level of provision and potential level of service of the whole consortium will be undermined. That issue has not yet been dealt with satisfactorily by the Government.
The principle behind the new clause is perfectly sound and rational. If the Government believe that there will not be a problem, why do they not accept the new clause? All of us in the Chamber believe that the new clause is a much more rational approach to funding adult education than the bits and pieces approach under which no one is clear what will happen. I hope that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) can persuade as many of his hon. Friends as possible to vote for the new clause and send it back to another place, where it can be given sympathetic consideration to speed this part of the Bill through.
Earlier we heard a diatribe from the Secretary of State against local authorities, and Labour authorities in particular, but he grudgingly conceded that adult education under LEA control has prospered and done well, despite all the obstacles that the Government have put in its way. Standard spending assessment calculations, which are bizarre, and the threat of poll tax capping have had an impact which has been felt by adult education services.
In my county, despite all the problems that Humberside LEA has, I am pleased to say that the LEA spends its full SSA allocation on adult education and provides one of the highest levels of service in Britain. It is one of the largest providers of adult education. It has every right to bid as a service direct to the funding council to ensure independence, continuity and the same high standard to which the service has been delivered by Humberside county council. The principle behind the new clause is sound and I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Unless I have misunderstood the Bill, there is no great merit in the new clause. As I understand the Bill, the further education colleges, and perhaps sixth-form colleges, will have to bid to the regional further education funding council for their funds. Some vocational and academic courses are run in community centres or community schools. If those courses lead to a certified national award, I am sure that the FEFC will be willing to fund them.
The Bill is about the pursuit of excellence. We want to compete with the rest of the world and develop our brain power. The only way to do that is to ensure that our higher and further education is second to none.
Community education, on the other hand, is basically leisure and recreational, although much of it may lead towards a more vocational course. It is terribly important in terms of building people's self-esteem and giving there a social life outside their home. As I understand it, it is to be funded by the LEA.
Both in writing and verbally, we have all heard from the Secretary of State that the LEAs will not be underfunded, and that community leisure and recreational courses will continue as normal.
I represent two boroughs, Rochdale and Oldham. About 20,000 people enjoy community education in both boroughs. If some of those community centres or schools run vocational or academic courses, the proper place to get funding for the continuation of the courses is through the FE college, via the regional FE funding council.
I do not think that the people of Littleborough, Saddleworth or the village of Shore would wish to be dragged into the centre of Oldham or Rochdale to the FE college, as it would mean long journeys late at night. People, and especially the elderly, do not like travelling late at night because of transport costs, difficulties with transport and fear of travelling at night, which is a real fear and one that must not be set aside.
As I understand it, the Bill does not try to make difficulties for education but tries to improve it. I cannot believe that, if a well-supported course—which leads to, or is part of, a vocational or academic qualification—is run in a village a long way from anywhere, the bid by the FE college locally, through the FE funding council, will not be successful and allow the course to continue.
If I have understood the Bill correctly—I think I have —there will be no need for my hon. Friend's new clause or for the fears expressed by some of my hon. Friends and by the Opposition. I shall wait until I have heard what the Minister has to say, and I shall reserve my judgment.
I honestly believe that I have understood the Bill correctly and that we are talking about the pursuit of excellence—ensuring that the United Kingdom develops people to their full potential so that we can compete with the rest of the world in terms of brain power, which will


make us successful. If we do not do that, we might as well stay at home, because we will not be competitive or win orders throughout the world. We must not forget that this nation produced the jet engine, which made the world smaller, and television, which came from radar, We have always had brain power. We had it long before we found mineral wealth.
I am sure that the Bill is designed to encourage the development of our brain power and to prevent a brain drain abroad, so that we can develop our nation and go forward in the pursuit of excellence.

Mr. Haynes: I am not surprised at that contribution from the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Tavistock. Is it Tavistock? [HON. MEMBERS: "Tiverton."] I am sorry. I visited that beautiful town during the summer recess last year.

Mr. Burns: Which one?

Mr. Haynes: Tiverton. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was a little cheeky upstairs. Now he is being cheeky down here.

Mr. Fatchett: He will not be here after the election.

Mr. Haynes: No, he will not.
I support the new clause. We shall be looking to see whether the Government take it on board, and I want to tell hon. Members why. Honestly, we never won a thing in Committee. The Minister rejected every amendment out of hand. That is what will happen tonight, unless the Minister tells us at the Dispatch Box that we have won and that he accepts the new clause.
The important thing is that I am back on the subject of Fred Riddell, who—for your information, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is the chairman of Nottinghamshire local education authority. If we are not careful, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, we will lose a fair amount of what we already have, and the situation will get worse.
Make no mistake about it: the Bill is full of obstacles, and that is why the hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) and his hon. Friends have tabled the new clause, especially in the interests of adult education.
It is all right the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth talking about facilities for leisure in the community. That is an important thing to our constituents.

Mr. Dickens: That is what I said.

Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman flippantly went across it, and he blew it out of the water.
We want to be able to provide the proper facilities for adult, further and higher education. However, when the community colleges make an application to the funding councils, we must remember that the Minister and his cronies will have loaded the councils with their own kind. Nine times out of 10, the councils will say, "Get lost. You can't have anything." That is what is wrong with the system and that is what we are afraid of.
The Labour party will change all that after 9 April. My hon. Friends will be sitting on the Government Benches

and some of the Conservative Members will be sitting on this side. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be in the Chair listening to a Labour Government. The Labour Government will make all the changes that are necessary to further, adult and higher education. There is no doubt about that. People outside the Chamber, who are clamouring for change, will get the satisfaction that they do not get under this lot. The Government are destroying further education.
I never forget Fred Riddell telling me what happened in Nottinghamshire as a result of the Government's provision of resources. We know that the Government want to put money into the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poor. Those people who have been put out of work and cannot get jobs want to better themselves in adult and further education and, if they can, in higher education. This lot and the Bill have put a block on that.
I will be in the Lobby to support those Conservative hon. Members who tabled the new clause, because it is a good one.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) misrepresented my speech. I said that community education built self-esteem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Speller: I have enjoyed not just the debate, but the work which led up to it. It has been one of those occasions when one is rightly obliged to consult principals of community colleges and those in further education colleges and to listen to what is said.
Three points have come over most strongly to me. The first is that many non-vocational courses that are taken almost for pleasure may lead to a vocational course. It would be criminal to make cuts and force a student to go to authority A for one course and authority B for another.
The excellent community colleges in Devon have been referred to at some length. The principals have community tutors and teachers who make full use of the premises for youngsters by day and for older students in the evening. They are fully aware of what the local community requires. With the best will in the world, the worst thing one can do is to seek to impose national uniformity across a country where, over recent years, we have sought to allow local folk to take control of local matters in the educational sector. It would be a retrograde step, when we have attempted to improve local choice and responsibility and appointed local governors, to seek to apply the whitewash of uniformity.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that money has been well provided. I do not suggest that both sides of the House do not want the same thing, which is better education for both youngsters and older people. I have been interested in the arguments of hon. Members in all parts of the House, who all want the best. Some are schoolteachers and, years ago, I was a chairman of a local education authority at a time when our schools were turning comprehensive even though that was against my political wishes. We can be successful in education only by working together, with all-party co-operation. We must not mess about with education.
If education needs anything today, it is a period of peace. I fully understand the need for change where change is necessary, but we must now allow the education


authorities to settle down. I plead with the Minister to remember that dual decision and dual funding are the classical bases for dispute. That is bound to happen, be it in the health service or in the social services. Where there is national and local funding, the question who is to lead and who is to pay the greater proportion is bound to arise. Where one authority is producing the cash and making the decisions that makes sense.
I agree almost entirely with the principles behind the Bill and should hate to have to vote against it in toto because i disagree with it in part. I urge the Minister to be cautious. I have spoken in North Devon to my intelligent and principled principals, their associates and local governors, all of whom have told me, "Our present sustem is good." I have been worried by the ministerial argument today which says, "Because it is only working all right, we must somehow improve it." I am happy with it as it stands, so I support my hon Friend the Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop).

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said more than once, "If I understand the Bill correctly." He does not understand it. He does not understand the process of adult education correctly. He is equally lost in understanding the new clause.
Adult education is not, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest at one stage, a substitute for a course of psychiatric treatment, although I do not deny that he might have regarded it as such at one time. Nor is adult education about providing certificates in every subject. It is about people wanting to participate in the education process without necessarily obtaining a qualification.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) talks about community colleges providing liberal, non-vocational, adult education. In that sense, it will not at the end of the day have to deliver a certificate as a result of a course having been taken. That is not to say that the content of the course might not be far higher than many purely academic courses leading to a qualification. Had the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth attended extra-mural or local authority courses in the areas of which we are speaking, he would be aware of the wonderful provision that we make in Britain.
Adult education is in many respects non-political. My experience of it in Wales is that it did not matter what was the politics of the local authority. It was purely and simply a matter of whether people were committed to education. Whatever their political complexion, if they had a commitment to adult education, the facilities were provided, but if that commitment was missing, the resources were not made available.
The hon. Member for Tiverton is trying to ensure that the money and resources not for further or higher but for adult education in free-standing community and adult colleges are available. We may have funding councils and give money to local authorities, further education colleges, and so on, but experience shows that when demands are made on the purses of those bodies, adult education is shuffled off and is the last item for which provision is made. The reason for that is sound in some ways. Because no certificate is awarded at the end of a course, local authorities understandably feel that they must fund certain courses because people depend on them for a living, so there is an imperative on those who dispense the money. If

we are to have a properly funded adult education service, which this country has never had, the Minister should take the new clause on board.
9.30 pm
Although I shall support the new clause, it could have been changed to take account of free-standing adult education colleges which operate like community colleges but entirely in their own premises. In answer to a letter, the Minister told me that those colleges would be properly funded, and there have been examples of that. Ministers keep giving that reassurance, which is fine, but how do we resolve the problem in Gwent, where a community college is attached to a school? It uses all the school's facilities but is separate from the school. How will such a college he funded?

Mr. Dickens: By apportionment.

Mr. Rogers: That may be so, but who decides? Ultimately, adult education is shuffled off the end.
People go into adult education for different reasons. While some take psychiatric courses or courses to repair certain objects, others undertake courses as a development programme, to attain a certificate or even as access to further education. We need adult education and I plead with the Minister to look carefully at the new clause and accept it as it stands, perhaps amending it in the future if he wishes to do so.
I understand why the Minister is against the suggestion that local authorities should run adult education. It is simply because the Government distrust all local government whether Tory or Labour. For some peculiar reason, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), did not like local government and it has been bashed for the past 10 years. It is about time the Government stopped bashing local government and Ministers were mature enough to get rid of their hang-up about local government.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful, as we should always he, to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) because he often tables amendments that enable us to express long-standing questions and grievances about the Bill that have not otherwise been identified. His ability to identify those issues is an example to us all.
I hope that something good will come out of the Bill. The Minister must be well aware that in many community colleges throughout the country people are concerned, alarmed and distressed about what they think is happening. Although I have sent him only a few examples, he will also be well aware that many people who attend community colleges where leisure, recreational and education classes are provided together have been given to understand that, once the Bill becomes law, leisure and recreational classes will be closed down and fees for all classes will increase.
I received four letters this morning from people who attend the dressmaking class at Ambleside Drive college asking me to get an assurance from the Minister that those classes will not close down because of his horrible Bill. Those complaints are not from people who go around with sledgehammers and throw bottles and bombs; they are from those who are among the huge number of people who very much enjoy the activities that community colleges


offer. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton to get across some facts clearly.
I have sent all my constituents a splendid letter, as the Minister says, saying that no money will he cut, no class will be required to close and no fees will need to go up. Although I am constantly sending such letters, people unfortunately have the impression that that what I have just said is not the case. The college staff are acutely worried about what is happening, with the result that posters are being put on the walls urging people to stop the Tory plot to close down the dressmaking classes at Ampleside Drive college.
We know that the colleges are terribly popular. The attendance rate at Ampleside Drive college shows that it is undoubtedly a big success. We must try to find out what the Bill provides for and what the amendment provides for. I hope that the Minister will explain what good comes from the Bill.
Does the Minister accept that there are some dangers posed to community colleges? We all know that, although county councils are wonderful organisations, when there is a change of Government policy, those councils—whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat—sometimes do nasty things and blame them on the Government. That could happen in this instance. Some county councils might decide to close down classes such as the dressmaking class at Ampleside Drive college and let the Government carry the blame.
Some colleges provide education, recreational and leisure classes, with the entire college working extremely well and efficiently. If one section of the college is taken out —for example, the education part—and shoved somewhere else, there is a danger that the college will not be so economically sound. As a consequence, instead of three colleges in one town, there may be only two or two and a half, and instead of five colleges in a large town, their numbers might be reduced to three and a half. That prospect worries college staff.
What can be done now? I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, if the splendid Ampleside Drive college wants its education classes to continue, and wants to remain a leisure, recreational and educational college, it can seek to co-operate with the local further education college. It could ask the FE college to include it when the FE college makes its requests of the council. The FE college may say yes or no. In the short term it will probably say yes, as accommodation may not otherwise be available. Instead of education coming under the control of the college principal, there would be a system of subcontracting.
Instead of the college superior, principal or director being in charge of everything, he would be in charge of leisure and recreation, while the control and administration of education would come under the remit of one of the clever people in charge of the FE college. I think that the Minister would accept that that would create problems, tensions, distress and alarm among college staff.
Does the Minister appreciate that, if the amendment were accepted, it would mean that education would be commissioned directly from the funding council? Instead of being a sort of odd job done under a subcontract, the

college could go straight to the council to ask if it could run the education service. The college director would still be in charge of everything.
It will make a big difference to a college if there is uncertainty—as there undoubtedly will be—first, as to whether some of the work might be taken away and, secondly, as to whether the local authority might do nasty things because of the change. In addition, college staff would feel humiliated at the education section being placed under the control of someone else. On that basis, I think that the Minister will see why there has been so much concern, distress and alarm.
Will the Minister assure me that I can tell my splendid local college that it can still continue with the education classes if that is agreed with the council and the local FE college? Some of the staff have the impression that those classes will be whipped away. My understanding is that they will not be, but will continue.

Mr. Eggar: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I promise my hon. Friend that I will sit down before 9.40 pm. I am sure that he will accept that, if there is to be change, it will cause upset, particularly among academic staff.
I rarely praise Ministers—I like to attack them—but the Minister of State takes education seriously and is fair-minded. Does he accept that people in charge of colleges providing education, leisure and recreation may be humiliated when they suddenly find that the glowing part of their responsibilities suddenly come under the control of others? That will cause distress and allegations of unfairness, not to mention feelings of discontent. Outsiders who may be less highly regarded may take over control of important parts of these activities, and the luscious relationship based on direct funding from the funding council may come to an end. In those circumstances, will colleges be able to approach someone to have their problems discussed?
The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton represents an attempt to give the colleges some security in the knowledge that they are maintaining a high profile and a direct right to provide education. That is important for their status. By contrast, the new clause undermines the work of the council. If further education is provided by new local bodies, some of them subcontracted, it will be undermined.
I ask Ministers to accept that there is a problem of education humiliation for some people, and to accept that there is a real problem. I see no reason why these colleges cannot carry on providing education. I hope that the Minister of State will show understanding of this real problem and will assure us that some of our worst fears are not well founded.

Mr. Andrew Smith: It is a measure of the importance that attaches to adult education and of the extent of dissatisfaction with the Government's proposals that we have heard so many speeches by Conservative Members this evening. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said, there is a real problem, and his colleagues underlined its extent and the need for a solution by means of the new clause.
It is to the credit of Conservative Members who support the new clause—it fits in well with our amendment No. 14—that they have listened to what is being said in


their constituencies and have heard, like the rest of us, the representations from colleges and centres. Conservative Members have listened, while the Government resolutely refuse to listen.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) outlined a commendably strong case for the contribution of community colleges in the south-west. He pointed out that they offer evening use and the effective use of resources, and he mentioned the difficulties that they could be caused by the Bill.
These problems arise from the distinction or division that the Bill would entrench between schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 work. We had some exchanges in Committee over the Minister's attributing less priority to non-schedule 2 work. He said then:
Schedule 2 encapsulates the course which the Government consider to be a matter of national economic and educational priority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 20 February 1992; c. 223.]
That cannot but give the signal that courses not in schedule 2 are not matters of national economic and educational priority.
9.45 pm
The second great fear of all concerned with adult education concerns the adequacy of the funding that would be left through the local education authority route, given the confines imposed on local authorities by poll tax capping and Government cuts. The Minister has said that the Government are undertaking a survey, but when I asked him about this on 14 February, he gave me a reply which was not much of a valentine for those in adult education. Dealing with the report analysing the distribution of present local authority expenditure between schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 work, he said:
The consultant's report is expected towards the end of this month and I will deposit a copy in the Library."—[Official Report, 14 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 646.]
That report had not appeared by the end of February, and it has not been deposited in the Library. That shows contempt for the public, for adult education and for the House. Hon. Members are being invited to pronounce on an issue without having had the benefit of seeing the evidence that the Government rely upon for their case.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) spoke about the important contribution made by community colleges in rural areas. I emphasise that that contribution is also important in urban areas. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) spoke from his experience of community college provision in his constituency. I understand that the hon. Gentleman may have made his last contribution to our debates. We shall all miss the characteristic sincerity with which he spoke on behalf of his constituents. He underlined the damage that the Bill would cause in Leicestershire. It will be interesting to see how his hon. Friends who represent Leicestershire constituencies vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made a powerful case for fairness of treatment between institutions which, under the terms of the Bill, will remain the responsibility of local education authorities and those which are incorporated. The new clause and the amendments are all about fairness. My hon. Friend spoke about the impossible difficulties that would be encountered through countywide services having to make bids via a further education college. He said that community education centres in Humberside

would be at risk. They will also be at risk in Essex, Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire, Devon, and Surrey and all the other areas from which we have had so many representations.
Community colleges, adult colleges and community education services are being placed in an impossible position educationally, managerially and financially, because they will have to look to different sources of funding and will never know where they stand in relation to the planning of courses and the finance that is available for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) was uncharacteristically soft-spoken and gentle in his demolition of the Government's case. My hon. Friend may be called in the Budget debate, but if his speech tonight turns out to be his last, we shall miss the force of his arguments, his personality and the brightness with which his political principles burn through all his comments.
The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) made a persuasive case on the vital contribution made by adult education as a bridge to widen educational opportunities. Many people on so-called non-vocational or leisure courses have an opportunity for the first time to develop self-confidence, and their involvement in a collegiate atmosphere leads them to further studies and qualifications. When people start such courses, it is impossible to predict whether they will proceed to qualifications. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a powerful case for liberal non-vocational education which is provided in colleges all over the country. It is indefensible that that is totally overlooked in the Bill. The Government have not been interested in listening to what the public and those who are involved in adult education have been saying. From the publication of the White Papers last May to these guillotined proceedings, the Government have not paid attention to the hundreds of representations that they have received.
If the White Papers and the Bill have one achievement, it is that they have assembled a formidable coalition of opposition. It is not, as the Secretary of State suggested, a politically motivated coalition, but one that is concerned about education and its members range from women's institutes to the Association of County Councils and from some Conservative Members to the Workers Educational Association and the trade unions.
The Government have not listened to the concerns expressed by those bodies, any more than they have listened to the adult education colleges, the community education centres and the open college networks. Throughout our deliberations on the Bill, they have treated adult education and the 3·4 million people it serves as poor relations—as an afterthought. They have hacked the service about to fit their predetermined policy on further education colleges.
Deaf to the chorus of protest, the Government have whipped and guillotined to ensure that their measure goes through unchanged, threatening the division and destruction of adult education should the Conservatives be returned to power. The Government have not listened, and the Government have not learned; but the millions who care about adult education will know from the Government's shabby treatment of the service in the Bill that only Labour can be trusted to make a reality of educational opportunity for all our citizens.
The Conservatives will learn the hard way. Adult education will prove to be one more reason why they will lose the election and we will win. I urge the House to support the new clause and the amendments.

Mr. Eggar: At least the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) had the decency to smile when he claimed that Labour would provide the solution for adult students. He knows the record of the last Labour Government. In real terms, funding for adult education centres fell by 12 per cent. over five years. Under the present Government, it has risen by no less than 31 per cent. in real terms; moreover, there has been an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in the number of adults educated in further education colleges.
The Bill is concerned with finding ways in which to provide more students with a better quality of adult education. That is its whole objective. That is why we have chosen to provide ring-fenced funding for schedule 2 courses for adults, and that is why we have given a categorical assurance that local education authorities will have no excuse for raising students' fees or cancelling classes as a result of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) raised the question of capital funding. Capital funding for LEA-maintained institutions, including those which do schedule 2 work, will come from LEAs, and we shall expect LEAs to bid for capital allocations as they do at present.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe asked whether a countywide service could apply through one further education college. The answer is yes. The hon. Member for Oxford, East referred to the consultants' report. Ministers have not yet received that report, but as I have said, when they do it will be placed in the Library. In the meantime, the Labour party might urge Labour-controlled LEAs which have not yet returned their questionnaires about the provision of adult education to the Department to do so.
My hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) spoke eloquently about community colleges in Devon. I have not had the pleasure of discussing the Devon case with them, but I have discussed the position in Leicestershire in considerable detail with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). I recognise the very considerable service provided by community colleges to adult education. I am wholly committed to open and flexible learning, and I accept that community colleges provide a type of open and flexible learning which is especially suitable to rural communities.
The Bill contains sound mechanisms to secure the funding of schedule 2 education which is provided in adult colleges and centres and in community colleges. There are three methods. The first is incorporation through clause 16, but I know that my hon. Friends believeunderstandably—that that is not appropriate for most community colleges.
Another method which has been drawn to the Committee's attention is that of designation under clause 28. There has been some misunderstanding about designation because it is not appropriate for a college or institution which is not an independent legal entity. Therefore, as my hon. Friends have made clear, most community providers will decide to use clause 6(5).
Under clause 6(5), further education colleges must forward the community college application to the councils where the provision in question would not otherwise be adequate in the area—that is, the application from the community college. It is the specific purpose of clause 6(5) that community providers should have the opportunity to have their schedule 2 work considered for funding by the funding councils. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that there will be a number of safeguards to ensure that that happens.
For the procedure to work effectively, there will need to be a clear framework and the Government will assist by giving guidance on the procedure for schedule 2 applications. Indeed, a circular letter has recently issued from the Further Education Funding Council unit which provides initial guidance to institutions on clause 5. That guidance will be supplemented at a later date by further guidance on procedures. I recommend my hon. Friends who have not yet seen the guidance which was issued on 28 February to study it. It states:
If it"—
the further education college—
decides not to support such an application, it will be expected to give its reasons for not doing so. The LEA institution"—
in other words, the community college—
will have the right to appeal against the decision to the Council.
However, protection for community colleges goes further than an appeal to the council. Of course, I expect that this procedure of application to a further education college and then, if necessary, an appeal to the council will sort out almost all—if not all—the problems which might arise, but if the community provider is still not satisfied it is open to the community institution to appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the ground that the FE college or the council has acted unreasonably or has failed in its statutory duty. The Secretary of State will seek to deal expeditiously with such complaints. If it is not possible to resolve the matter before the funding council announces its annual allocation—this was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton—it will be possible to hold back the small sums involved for later distribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton mentioned structure in terms of the methodology of bidding. Community colleges will be able to bid to the funding council for a package of provision according to the timetable that has been set down. It will not be a matter merely of waiting to see whether the students turn up, as my hon. Friend implied. Bidding will be well in advance, on a timetable, so that colleges and community providers will know exactly what courses they can lay on.
We believe that it is right that applications from community colleges and other community providers should go through the appropriate FE college. We believe that the FE colleges will act responsibly in response to local demands for courses. In most cases, if not the vast majority of cases, they will accept the bids put forward by the community colleges. We are totally committed to better quality adult education and to more being available in all areas. I urge the House to reject the new clause.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [11 February], put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 300.

Division No. 105]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Alton, David
Gordon, Mildred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gould, Bryan


Armstrong, Hilary
Graham, Thomas


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Grocott, Bruce


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hain, Peter


Barron, Kevin
Hardy, Peter


Beckett, Margaret
Haynes, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Beith, A. J.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bell, Stuart
Henderson, Doug


Bellotti, David
Hinchliffe, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Benton, Joseph
Home Robertson, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hood, Jimmy


Blunkett, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Boateng, Paul
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Boyes, Roland
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hoyle, Doug


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ingram, Adam


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Greville


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carr, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Clelland, David
Lambie, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ron


Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Crowther, Stan
Livingstone, Ken


Cryer, Bob
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cummings, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Loyden, Eddie


Dalyell, Tarn
McAllion, John


Darling, Alistair
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Dewar, Donald
McFall, John


Dixon, Don
McGrady, Eddie


Oobson, Frank
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Doran, Frank
McKelvey, William


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
McLeish, Henry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McMaster, Gordon


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McNamara, Kevin


Eadie, Alexander
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Enright, Derek
Marion, Mrs Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Harry (Falklrk E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Farr, Sir John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Faulds, Andrew
Martlew, Eric


Fearn, Ronald
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grtmsby)


Foster, Derek
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fraser, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Fyfe, Maria
Morley, Elliot


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mowlam, Mariorie





Mullin, Chris
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, C. (lsl 'ton &amp; F'bury)


Nellist, Dave
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


O'Brien, William
Snape, Peter


O'Hara, Edward
Soley, Clive


O'Neill, Martin
Spearing, Nigel


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steinberg, Gerry


Paisley, Rev Ian
Stephen, Nicol


Parry, Robert
Stott, Roger


Patchett, Terry
Straw, Jack


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prescott, John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Primarolo, Dawn
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Trimble, David


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dennis


Randall, Stuart
Wallace, James


Redmond, Martin
Walley, Joan


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wareing, Robert N.


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wigley, Dafydd


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rooker, Jeff
Wilson, Brian


Rooney, Terence
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, Jimmy


Sheerman, Barry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Short, Clare
Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Tony Speller.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Burns, Simon


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Chris


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Allason, Rupert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Amos, Alan
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, James
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Churchill, Mr


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Atkinson, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Cormack, Patrick


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Couchman, James


Benyon, W.
Cran, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dickens, Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard
Dicks, Terry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Eggar, Tim


Bowis, John
Emery, Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Evennett, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fallon, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Favell, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Buck, Sir Antony
Fookes, Dame Janet






Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fry, Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Glyn, Or Sir Alan
Madel, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gregory, Conal
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hague, William
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr")
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Christopher
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hayward, Robert
Moss, Malcolm


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mudd, David


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hill, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Norris, Steve


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Page, Richard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irvine, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irving, Sir Charles
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knox, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, Sir William


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael





Sims, Roger
Trippier, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller. Gary


Squire, Robin
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stevens, Lewis
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wilkinson, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wilshire, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thorne, Neil
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thornton, Malcolm
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thurnham, Peter



Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. David Lightbown and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker then put forthwith the remaining Question which he was directed to put from the Chair.

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 210.

Division No. 106]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alexander, Richard
Browne, John (Winchester)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Allason, Rupert
Buck, Sir Antony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Butler, Chris


Amos, Alan
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Carttiss, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cartwright, John


Atkins, Robert
Cash, William


Atkinson, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chapman, Sydney


Baldry, Tony
Chope, Christopher


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Churchill, Mr


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Conway, Derek


Benyon, W.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cormack, Patrick


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bos well, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dicks, Terry


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boy son, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dunn, Bob


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dykes, Hugh






 Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knowles, Michael


Evennett, David
Knox, David


Fallon, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Favell, Tony
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Latham, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Ivan


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lord, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


French, Douglas
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, Sir George
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Madel, David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maples, John


Gorst, John
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mates, Michael


Grist, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Ground, Patrick
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hague, William
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, Iain


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moate, Roger


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawkins, Christopher
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Mudd, David


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony


Hill, James
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Norris, Steve


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Paice, James


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Irvine, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irving, Sir Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Jackson, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Janman, Tim
Price, Sir David


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Redwood, John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kilfedder, James
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh





Rost, Peter
Thornton, Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trippier, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shelton, Sir William
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Walters, Sir Dennis


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, Sir John


Squire, Robin
Whitney, Ray


Stanbrook, Ivor
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wigley, Dafydd


Steen, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stevens, Lewis
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Younger, Rt Hon George


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Thorne, Neil



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Dalyell, Tarn


Alton, David
Darling, Alistair


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Doran, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Beckett, Margaret
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beggs, Roy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Beith, A. J.
Eadie, Alexander


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Beliotti, David
Enright, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Benton, Joseph
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Faulds, Andrew


Blunkett, David
Fearn, Ronald


Boateng, Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carr, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gould, Bryan


Clelland, David
Graham, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Corbett, Robin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Cousins, Jim
Hain, Peter


Crowther, Stan
Hardy, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cummings, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Henderson, Doug






Hinchliffe, David
Nellist, Dave


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kllsyth)
O'Brien, William


Home Robertson, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hood, Jimmy
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Howells, Geraint
Parry, Robert


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Patchett, Terry


Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lambie, David
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Rogers, Allan


Leighton, Ron
Rooker, Jeff


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooney, Terence


Lewis, Terry
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McGrady, Eddie
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stephen, Nico!


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Trimble, David


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Wallace, James


Meacher, Michael
Walley, Joan


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N.


Michael, Alun
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wilson, Brian


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morgan, Rhodri
Worthington, Tony


Morley, Elliot
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Mowlam, Marjorie
Tellers for the Noes:


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Taxation of Cgargeable Gains Bill[Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a consolidation of the enactments relating to the taxation of chargeable gains presently found in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 and in annual Finance Acts from 1970 onwards. It extends throughout the United Kingdom.
The legislation re-enacted in the Bill provides for the taxation of chargeable gains accruing to both individuals and to companies and has not previously been consolidated in one Act.
The Bill, which is pure consolidation, has been considered and approved by the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills. It has been drafted by a former parliamentary counsel, engaged by the Law Commission. The Law Commission and the draftsman are to be congratulated on their efforts in tidying up this complex aspect of the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Patnick.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.
The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of £49·2 million in the 1991–92 spring supplementary estimates. This will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £4,725 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £2,140 million for 1992–93, to enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1992–93 main estimates are brought before the House later this year.
The Northern Ireland block has faced significant resource pressures this year, with expenditure on a number of demand-led programmes being higher than anticipated. The extra demands placed on the law and order programme have contributed to this. But, in fact, the major increases are encompassed by the supplementary estimates we are now considering—in particular in the health and education programmes. In the interests of prudent financial management, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 9 December 1991 a temporary pause on spending on new capital contracts in order to accommodate those new demands. We have always made it clear that this would apply only to the current financial year. I am happy to be able to confirm today that this is so. Indeed, the moratorium is already effectively drawing to a close. Departments are gearing themselves to release those projects which will not now involve expenditure until the 1992–93 financial year. In addition, within the sums in the estimates, my colleagues and I will continue to take the opportunity to release projects selectively where resources permit.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Before we leave the issue of the dreaded moratorium, the Minister should be aware that what he has just said will provide a great deal of encouragement to those institutions and bodies that were clobbered as a result of it. Many of them were given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the clamp on expenditure would be long term. In some cases it was rumoured that programmes would be put back for three years. I am glad that the Minister has been able to give us an assurance about that.

Dr. Mawhinney: I should be distressed if people felt that programmes would be put back for three years as a result of my right hon. Friend's announcement. It was always our intention, if at all possible, to limit the pause on spending to this financial year and I believe that we shall be able to do that.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Given what the Minister has said to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), is he aware that the Department of the Environment road services division has already written to local councils to inform them that schemes have been put off as far as 1995–96?

Dr. Mawhinney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I have called into question what either he

or the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) have said. It is open to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland and local councils to take this matter up again with Departments, should they so wish.
To give hon. Members the maximum time, I shall refer only to the main areas where supplementary provision is sought. In Department of Agriculture vote 1, the major increases are £2·3 million for payments under the agriculture and horticulture development scheme and £4·4 million for the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme, reflecting increases in rates of allowances and in numbers of eligible animals. Those increases are partly offset by reduced requirements of some £3·4 million on other capital grant schemes, where uptake and investment levels are lower than had been expected.
In Department of Agriculture vote 2, additional provision of £4·1 million includes £2·3 million for the disease eradication programme, following an upturn in the incidence of diseases such as tuberculosis and brucellosis.
For the Department of Economic Development, additional provision is sought on three votes. In vote 1, an additional £3·9 million is sought for expenditure on custom-built factory premises, including the building of two advance factories in west Belfast, an area of particularly high unemployment. That is offset by other adjustments, including increased receipts of £3·5 million from the sale of surplus land and buildings. In vote 2, an additional £1·1 million is sought for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Also in this vote, an additional £2 million is sought for financial assistance to the gas industry to cover expenditure on clearing the Ormeau road gasworks site in Belfast, and £4·6 million is required for consultancy costs in connection with the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland.
In relation to the Department of the Environment, vote I, an additional £4·5 million is required. That includes £1·3 million for roads and bridges, including a major road scheme in Craigavon; £500,000 is for road lighting, and £700,000 for payments to Northern Ireland Railways. Those increases are offset by reductions in other areas and by additional receipts, leaving a token increase of £ 1,000 in the vote. In vote 2, an additional £5·4 million is sought; £12·3 million is required for the Northern Ireland housing executive, mainly to enable it to repay loans. That is offset by additional receipts from housing associations and by a fall in the number of applications under the co-ownership scheme.
Department of the Environment vote 3, covering expenditure by the water service, shows a token increase of £1,000. That reflects various reallocations of resources within the vote, and includes an additional £3·4 million for consultants' fees for design work on water and sewerage capital schemes associated with EC directives. In vote 4, an additional £3·3 million is sought. That includes £3·7 million for community economic regeneration schemes, bringing total expenditure on urban regeneration to £39 million. Funds continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need.
For the Department of Education, a net increase of £10·7 million is sought for vote 1. An additional £11·8 million is required for grants to education and library boards, including £4·5 million for the youth training programme; £8·7 million is for mandatory student awards, reflecting the success of Government policy to increase the proportion of school leavers who enter higher education.


The pause on capital expenditure has had an impact on a number of capital projects in the education sector, but I assure the House that all major works contracts will be reactivated over the next few months. We also considered it a high priority to make funds immediately available to provide temporary classrooms at St. Anthony's primary school in Craigavon, which was destroyed in a despicable IRA bomb attack. I have visited the school three times, once with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I pay tribute to the resilience of the staff, pupils and parents in their efforts to maintain the education process in such difficult circumstances.
For the Department of Health and Social Services, a net increase of 2·8 million is sought in vote 1; £2·5 million is for grants to health and social services boards to meet increased costs; and £15 million is required for expenditure on the family health services. That arises from the new general practitioner and dental contracts, increased demand for sight tests and increased drug costs. Those increases are offset by increased receipts of £2·7 million and by reductions of £13·5 million in capital expenditure, which will of course, be reconsidered in the next financial year.
In vote 4, which covers social security, nearly £15 million is sought to meet increases in the numbers receiving a wide range of benefits, including income support and disability benefits.
In these brief remarks I have sought to draw the attention of the House to some of the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate, my hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond to detailed points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: These days, it would be strange to hear a Minister's speech that did not include an electoral bribe. Northern Ireland Members will be pleased to know that the expenditure on capital is to be removed in the next financial year. I presume that it is another example of promise now, pay later.

Dr. Mawhinney: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in the unlikely and bizarre event of the Labour party being elected to power, the moratorium will continue throughout the next financial year?

Mr. Marshall: No, I am not saying that. Northern Ireland Members will have heard me make speeches before saying that we intend—economic circumstances permitting—to enhance public expenditure in the Province. I am simply saying that in the past few months, members of the Government have been increasing the public expenditure borrowing requirement with no apparent regard for the country's economic state of affairs. It just shows the depths to which they are prepared to stoop to bribe the electorate and gain a majority at the election. I have always respected Ministers who are responsible for Northern Ireland for their probity and lack of deceit and admired the open way in which they have addressed the House. It is appalling that, on this occasion, which is likely to be the last Northern Ireland appropriations debate of this

Parliament, the Minister of State should fall from his usual high standard of probity and honesty and stoop to such low levels. It ill becomes him.
I have often thanked Ministers in such appropriation debates in the past. Leaving the bribe issue aside, I should like to thank the Minister for going through the order with such clarity and lucidity. The House will be wiser for his speech.
I have enjoyed the debates in the past four and a half years and I hope that hon. Members will agree that I have always sought to be fair, even-handed and non-partisan. It is a little unfortunate that the Minister introduced a degree of partisanship into this evening's debate. I have an added pleasure this evening because, although this is the last appropriations debate of this Parliament, I know that in the next few weeks the Labour party will be responsible for administering the affairs of the kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland can rest assured that, when that situation arises, it will herald a fresh start for the socal welfare and economic life of the Province.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marshall: I shall give way in a few minutes, because the Minister may wish to respond then.
May I give a few words of assurance to the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)? If the Minister of State retains his seat, the probability of which is a little higher than—

Mr. Roger Stott: Both their coats are on a short nail.

Mr. Marshall: May I make my own point? It is just as good as the one that my hon. Friend seeks to make.
The probability of the Under-Secretary retaining his seat is less than the probability of the Minister retaining his. The Minister has been looking harassed in the past few months. The strains and stresses of his high office over the past few years are showing, but they will quickly disappear once he is languishing on the Opposition Benches, an experience that will be new to him. It will outline for him a new life that he has not experienced since 1979, as a member of the governing party and, latterly, a member of the Government.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here this evening because I remember meeting him at the cricket ground in Leicester some years ago. He was showing his son the beauties of cricket and of the ground at Leicester. I am delighted that the Secretary of State—

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will it be possible to stick to the appropriate order, rather than wandering round the playing fields of Leicester? We have only an hour and a half, and such debates do not happen often.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is a perfectly reasonable point of order. When the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) had finished, I was going to appeal for short speeches as I see that a number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and I should like to call all those who wish to speak.

Mr. Marshall: My speech will be short, Madam Deputy Speaker. This point is not out of order as the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 refers to the expenditure of Government Departments in the Province.


Naturally, some of that expenditure is incurred in providing services and facilities to Northern Ireland Ministers. I accept that Members from Northern Ireland wish to have a considerable time for the debate and I assure them that that will be available to them. I will not wander out of order.
I am sure that the Secretary of State is looking forward to renewing his love affair with cricket. I wish that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), were present, as we shall miss his private conversations becoming public. The absence of his knowledge of agricultural affairs will be a severe loss to me and., I am sure, to the general public.
For the past four and a half years I have always paid tribute to Northern Ireland Ministers for the way in which they have sought to protect the economy and social welfare system of the Province from the worst excesses and ravages of successive Tory Governments. I pay tribute to them again. But we must never forget that, since 1979, Tory policies have had a deleterious effect on the economy in the Province. Without any shadow of doubt, the industrial base of the Province is smaller now than it was 13 years ago. There is no doubt that a sound manufacturing base is essential for the future of the Province, as it is for the kingdom as a whole.
Nationally, we shall establish the economic conditions conducive to investment and growth—conditions that the Government have signally failed to obtain. In the Province, we shall create institutions to encourage inward investment, particularly in those industries based on the exploitation of the new technologies.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: My hon. Friend introduced the order with such rapidity that there was scarcely an opportunity to intervene. I seek clarification from the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on one point. Page 28 of the report refers to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and the most appreciable increase of taxpayers' money that is devoted to it. Will the hon. Greater refer to that most appreciable investment and explain whether he finds it acceptable? Is taxpayers' money being wisely dispensed in that way?

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) will refer specifically to the Housing Executive, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to respond to his specific point, I shall. I pay tribute to the Government for the good work that the Housing Executive has carried out. I am one of the first to pay tribute to the Housing Executive, which has sought to house people without discrimination and irrespective of the community from which they come.
One point that my hon. Friend will make—perhaps I can rehearse the argument for him—is that we are a little worried about the moratorium on capital expenditure in that sphere. We are also concerned that capital expenditure is being held down because of the need to pay compensation for damage caused by IRA terrorist activities. We hope that that moratorium will be removed and that the Housing Executive and those seeking public accommodation through that executive in Northern Ireland are not made to bear an additional punishment because of terrorist excesses. When the Minister of State replies, perhaps he will address that issue.
Previous industrial strategies have floundered on the lack of skills at all levels throughout industry. It is our intention to establish training programmes so that all young people are equipped for the labour market. We shall establish a pool of skilled labour that is attractive to new employers. Our objective is to establish a modern, diversified economic base for the Province, which offers the prospect of a job at home, rather than the prospect of dole at home or work over the water.
As proof of my good intentions—not to speak for too long—I shall conclude by saying something about the community workshops. That movement is in dispute with Ministers about levels of funding and the way in which it is provided. People in the community workshop movement feel that that reflects Ministers' lack of confidence in the movement. I should like the Minister to take this opportunity to allay that fear and to join the Opposition in complimenting the workshops on trying to provide a service to young people in the Province, especially the most disadvantaged among them.
I look forward to more being spent on the Northern Ireland Assembly. We hope that it will prove necessary to increase the budget of the Assembly so that it becomes a real, not a shadow, Assembly.
If I may be allowed to stray out of order for one final sentence, we wish the talks, whether they are held now or after the election, all the best.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We have heard speeches by both Government and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen this evening. The people of Northern Ireland will remember the old saying, "Live old horse and you will eat grass." The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) assured us that if the economic situation held up, we would be well looked after. That reminded me of the old professor in college who used to say that if a cow had a long enough tail it would reach the moon—"if".
I welcomed the comments by the hon. Member for Leicester, South about the community workshops. We have pressed the Minister on them before; I hope he can assure us that, far from falling over the next three years, expenditure on the workshops will be maintained, to deal with the challenges that await them.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Labour Governments have always sought to deliver to the Province on the economic front.

Rev. Martin Smyth: When Labour was in power we were treated as a full part of the United Kingdom, not pushed on to the sidelines—despite claims to the contrary. But the economic situation is not so bright as the hon. Gentleman painted it. He asked us to believe that there would be an economic revival under a Labour Government. What I have to say will be of cold comfort to the House, but the people of Northern Ireland will not be taken in by such promises.
I do not imply that the Minister misled the House tonight, but people in the Province know that the true picture is quite different. We look forward to the Minister's commitments this evening being put quickly into practice.
The Poswillo report made several sweeping recommendations on the use of general anaesthesia, sedation and resuscitation, but the Government have failed—we heard


nothing more about this today—to allocate funds to its implementation in Northern Ireland, despite having provided £9 million for that purpose in Great Britain, as announced in a statement on 22 January.
Dentists who do not receive help have two options: they can use their own money, thus cutting back on an already under-funded area of the national health service; or they can refer patients to hospitals and thereby take up beds and hospital time, both of which are under pressure from other sectors. Will the Minister ensure that the necessary funding is allocated?
Does the Department of Health and Social Services vote contain any provision to bring the allocation to the Northern Ireland hospice into line with that recently announced for England and Wales? I understand that allocations for hospice provision in England and Wales amount to 42 per cent., whereas it is 30 to 33 per cent. in Northern Ireland.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will remember a conversation that I had with him and his colleague the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) about the funding of Fairholme in my constituency. I am still waiting for a definitive answer. I understand that the matter has been batted around Departments.
From time to time emergencies may cause upsets, but there is a degree of short-sightedness in the Department when planning future expenditure. I refer specifically to the provision of a surgery in Great Victoria street. That has been on the stocks since 1988 and the Department and its valuer have been aware of it. Now the Department says that it cannot even consider the matter at least until the summer, and possibly not until the 1993–94 funding. What is to happen to the property in the meantime? It is in a redevelopment area.
There has been talk about the needs of west Belfast. That property was in west Belfast before the last redrawing of the boundaries, as the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) will confirm. It is in an area of need, and work in an inner-city practice is being held up because the Department is not able to say that the problem can be taken on board, although it has been aware of it since 1988 and has been seeking to provide a facility. The Minister should consider the practical outcome of delay and act accordingly.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am sure that to hon. Members who are not from Northern Ireland these appropriation debates seem exceedingly parochial. But until the House determines that it will deal with Northern Ireland business in a better way and until Northern Ireland itself has structures capable of dealing with day-to-day issues in a better way, Northern Ireland Members have no choice and therefore make no apology for getting down to grass roots issues under the appropriation accounts.
Vote I for the Department of Economic Development covers expenditure relating to the Industrial Development Board. I do not intend to make any cheap jibes about the publicised statistics on the IDB. All Northern Ireland Members are aware of the difficult task faced by the IDB

in trying to encourage investment in Northern Ireland. Now there is an opportunity for the Government to ensure something of a new start for the IDB.
When the Government are considering a replacement for the outgoing person in the IDB, Mr. Tony Hopkins, they should put in post someone who has the drive and enthusiasm to bring jobs to Northern Ireland and to sell the Province as a suitable location for investment. Much can be done if the right person is in post and I, like many others, think that it would be better to look to the business world for someone to fill it.
In the vote for the Department of Economic Development, under the heading of labour market services, expenditure is set aside for the use of the Fair Employment Commission. This evening's issue of the Belfast Telegraph states that on Monday the commission intends to publish its religious breakdown of workers in 1,700 companies in Northern Ireland. The list will give details of the number of Protestants and Roman Catholics in each firm in the Province.
That move has, I believe, been opposed by all the employers' organisations. It has certainly been opposed by my colleagues in the House and, I understand, by the Ulster Unionists. It is an act of utter folly: the commission will, in effect, be publishing a hit list for terrorist organisations.
I can think of no greater administrative lunacy than to publish a head count of Protestant and Roman Catholic work forces throughout Northern Ireland. It will help terrorist organisations to target employers who, in their view, are not employing appropriate percentages and enable members of a work force to know exactly who is Protestant and who is Roman Catholic, thus helping to isolate small numbers of people.
Just as serious in economic terms is the fact that such a list will undoubtedly provide a basis for the boycotting of certain goods throughout Northern Ireland. We shall now have Protestant and Roman Catholic goods, and people will be encouraged to buy goods that happen to have been made by firms that are either Protestant or Roman Catholic. That may seem far-fetched to some hon. Members on this side of the Irish sea, but there is not the slightest doubt that it will come about if the list is published.

Mr. Roy Beggs: My party opposed the proposal to publish such information, in the best interests of both communities, and to protect them in their work-places.

Mr. Robinson: I do not doubt that every hon. Member holds the same view. The danger is just as great for one section of the community as for the other. When disaster strikes—as it undoubtedly will—let them turn to Bob Cooper and ask him why he had to be so pig-headed and proceed with this lunacy, in the face of all the advice that he had received from so many people who had been involved in both the business and the political worlds in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, over the past few years, the commission has published a series of reports in respect of individual firms—for instance, banks and insurance companies? The reports have concerned a large number of employers, but there is no evidence that any of those firms suffered any diminution of their trade or income as a


result, or that their work forces were attacked. If evidence of what he says exists, will the hon. Gentleman present it to the House?

Mr. Robinson: We are not talking about large employers; we are talking about every firm in every back street that employs 25 people or more. The opportunities are thus multiplied considerably, and people will become much more exposed and vulnerable.
Let me join the hon. Members for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in supporting the call for the Government to make clear their intention in relation to the community workshop projects. Those hon. Gentlemen have already said that there is something of a crisis in the community workshops in Northern Ireland. I should have hoped that every hon. Member would strongly approve of those bodies because they have a very worthwhile role in the Province.
Indeed, if it were not so, the Government would not have funded them initially, but there has been no significant increase in the money available to them since the financial year 1989–90. To date, they have still not been told what increase—if any—there might be for the new financial year.
If it is the Government's intention to add the community workshops to the moratorium, those organisations will expect a reduction in the amount of money made available to them. Although, thankfully, inflation has decreased considerably in the past few years, it is still in the round and likely to be 4 per cent. in the next financial year. That means that there will be less money available to the community workshops in that year while, at the same time, their expenditure is likely to increase.
I ask the Minister, therefore, if he will assure the community workshops that the finance available to them will be increased above inflation because they are lagging behind, not only in terms of inflation but in comparison to equivalent organisations such as other training centres. I understand that the average cost per place is about £550 higher in the training centres than under community provision, so I hope that the Government will examine the issue and remove the concern of those deeply involved with the community workshops.
In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the moratorium. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said that there had been concern in

Northern Ireland that the moratorium might have been longer lived than the Minister implied. There is much concern in Northern Ireland that vital projects—especially road and housing projects—have been held back, and for much longer than the Minister said. I cite the example of the roads programme.
In the borough of Castlereagh, two vital projects at Purdysburn road and Ballymaconaghy road have been put off until the mid-1990s well beyond the date of the moratorium. If those projects do not proceed, one can conclude only that the Department is not going to live up to the promise that it made in the Belfast urban area plan that, where it zoned for housing and other purposes, it would provide the infrastructure as a priority. If there is no such infrastructure, there will be no housing. If there are no houses, there will be fewer homes for people and fewer jobs in the construction industry.
I know that, if the Minister at the Department of the Environment had more money available for roads, we would certainly be able to use it. The Treasury must ensure that finance is made available for those roads. There are only pence in the purse of the Department of the Environment's roads services and the money must be increased considerably.
I was concerned to discover that, because of the IRA terror campaign in Northern Ireland, the Housing Executive's budget was being cut. It seems that the people of Northern Ireland have to pay twice for terrorism. They have to endure the attacks of the Provisional IRA and its bedfellows and, at the same time, the finances are cut for the essential projects that might make life much easier for them. That is unfair, especially for my constituency. When cuts are made, they hit east Belfast harder than west Belfast. I shall not take this opportunity to tell the Minister where the bombers come from who wreck Belfast and who cause compensation to be paid, but it is surely unfair that my constituency has to suffer more as a consequence of IRA terrorism. Indeed, it has to suffer twice over. If the Housing Executive has to make cuts, I hope that it will be even-handed.
There is a long-awaited report—this may stretch the Minister—on the Crumlin road and the consequences of separation. There are consequences for the community generally. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when the report will be produced and when the Government will be prepared to act on it.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful to the Minister of State for speaking briefly and enabling more hon. Members to take part in the debate, but I would have been grateful also if he had outlined the reason for the moratorium on public expenditure. It commenced on 9 December, and it has caused great distress in Northern Ireland. The local buzz was that it was the result of the IRA bombing campaign in Belfast in the autumn of 1991 and onwards. It was thought, however, that the ensuing claims would not enter the pipeline for at least two or three years and could not be a draw, as it were, on the current budget. It was felt that a substantive budgetary error had been made.
During business questions and questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I requested that a statement be made to explain why a moratorium on all public expenditure—both capital and revenue, as far as revenue could be withheld—was applied for four months of the fiscal year, without explanation to the House. I find that remarkable and unsatisfactory.
I was told by the Leader of the House that I had an opportunity to raise the matter during this debate. It is only three weeks before the end of the fiscal year, and four months of the year have been dead in terms of expenditure. I do not understand why that should have been so, and I find it unsatisfactory. The moratorium had a devastating effect on the provision of services across the community. The construction industry and service industries suffered a tremendous cut, and that contributed in no small measure to increasing unemployment. Why did the moratorium occur? I hope that the Minister of State's assurances that it is now over will be further explained. I am not clear about what the hon. Gentleman said and what he meant.
The Minister who opened the debate was responsible for education and was involved with the Dromore high school's playing fields. There were difficulties because this large school had no playing fields and was landlocked. there was a willing landowner, however, and a contract, was signed, at long last, three weeks ago. Then the Department said, "Sorry, you can't do that. Send the money"—£600,000—"into the central kitty. It would not be fair to the North-Western education board which had to hand in £2 million, if you spent that money."
I inquired, and discovered that the North-Western board did not hand in £2 million. Are we now being told that that contract, which was signed, can be fulfilled tomorrow, and the £600,000 spent as planned by the Southern education board, in co-operation with Banbridge district council and the Department of Education? That would be a clear explanation of the whole thing and we would know where we were going from then out.
I wish to comment in particular on health and social security matters. It is evident to me from my constituency experience that massive cuts are being made in the provision of health care to the consumer —both in hospitals and in the community. I can only extrapolate from those experiences and assume that the rest of Northern Ireland is suffering in exactly the same respect.
Take the three hospitals in the South Down area—the Downe hospital, Downpatrick, the Mourne hospital, Kilkeel, and the Cowan Herron hospital, Banbridge. One has been closed; one is in a state of flux and no one knows

whether it is opening or closing; the other—the Downe hospital, Downpatrick—has been waiting 26 years this month for rehabilitation and resiting. A quarter of a century is a reasonably acceptable period after which to ask when and if that rehabilitation and resiting will happen.
The Minister will probably say that that is a matter for the Eastern health and social services board. But the terms of the 1948 Act—if I remember rightly, require equity of treatment and accessibility of provision for the consumer. This has not been implemented in the Downe area and is not being provided by the board, and the Minister must surely have a duty to direct that they should be provided.
Similarly for community and residential care, there is a litany of closures. St. Leonard's house, Warrenpoint closed. Mourne house, Newcastle is threatened with closure. Navan house, Newcastle is to be closed, and other homes have been targeted—not on the basis given by the Southern and Eastern boards in those cases, which was to divert money into the community services. I know, as sure as I am standing here tonight, that we are talking not about transfers of finance but about cuts in finance.
The community service will never see the money that has allegedly been saved by the closure of those residential homes. The level of community service now is very poor indeed. Those cuts have allegedly been made in the interests of providing better care in the community, but I do not think that that will ever materialise. We are talking about straightforward financial cuts without any compensation. I shall be glad if I am proved wrong about that.
The closures also belie the Government's own policy on residential and community care. The Government have stated clearly that consumers will have a choice between the public and the private sectors. I have given a litany of cases tonight in which public provision is being obliterated in a scheduled way. There will be no choice for consumers: they will be forced into the private sector whether they like it or not.
On the general question of the provision of health care, will the Minister take on board—now that he has direct responsibility for it—the fact that waiting lists are growing day and daily? In nearly every aspect of medical care, including cardiac surgery, orthodontics, dermatology, opthalmology and the ear, nose and throat specialty the queues are getting longer.
In reply to my parliamentary question about cardiac surgery, which is probably the most vital surgery because without it, people die, I was told that, between 1981 and 1986, there was a 250 per cent. increase in the waiting lists for cardiac surgery at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. The Minister will respond to that by saying that he has provided a fourth cardiac surgeon and has set up an additional unit. However, we need a fifth cardiac surgeon to keep alive the young men and women who are not receiving the medicine, care and surgery that they need. The House need not take my word for that; hon. Members need only refer to the detailed report of the Northern Ireland Chest, Stroke and Heart Foundation, which provides a more detailed story than I can relate.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about the roads executive budget, which I believe he referred to as pence instead of pounds. I understand that, for the next financial year, there will be £3 million for actual road works. On the basis


of £1 million a mile, we are going to get three miles of new road in the next fiscal year. What annoys me so much about that is that, in the years of plenty, when roads were built, nothing was done in the area that I represent.
For 13 years, not a single pound has been spent on major capital road works in my constituency. The new ring road proposed for the town of Downpatrick has been abandoned in the past two months. That is a very sad reflection, because, like the hospital to which I have referred, it was subject to much study over the decades. Indeed, that led me to coin the phrase "paralysis and analysis". It got nowhere at all.
We must also consider unadopted roads. 1n that respect, I mean not necessarily roads on new estates, but countryside roads that have never been properly transferred into the public sector from the old days of local government.
I hope that the Minister will be able to address those points when he replies. If he cannot, I hope that he will write to me. This is my first experience of a Parliament running down and, although I am not sure whether it is appropriate, I want to put on record my sincere thanks to Northern Ireland Ministers for the courtesy with which they have always received my requests. On many occasions we have differed vehemently on policy and practical matters, but at all times I have received courtesy and help, which I appreciated.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I can raise only two matters in the short time available to me if the remainder of my colleagues from Northern Ireland are to be allowed time to speak in this debate.
The town of Hollywood in my constituency has a very ancient history and concerned citizens of all ages from that town came together at a public meeting to protest in an orderly and effective way about the lamentable lack of recreation facilities in the town. Hollywood has grown in size by leaps and bounds in the past 20 years and, because of the size of its population, the town deserves proper facilities for all ages in the community, including the provision of a swimming pool. I have raised the issue in the House before and I have made representations to the Minister who always points out, rightly, that this is a matter for North Down council. However, I urge the Minister to use his considerable influence to persuade the council to place on its list the need for a recreation complex for Hollywood. If necessary, the Minister should earmark a sum of money for that provision.
The Queen's hall in Hollywood has been mentioned as a possible place where some recreation facilities could be provided, but I am against that because Queen's hall is the civic centre of the town of Hollywood and should be kept as such. Therefore, I ask that a separate site be provided for that much-needed complex for the people of Hollywood who deserve it. It would certainly be beneficial for people of all ages, in particular the young and the elderly.
My maiden speech in 1964 was about the needs of the elderly, and in the dying days of this Parliament it is right that I again refer to that matter. I have mentioned it many times during my time in the House. In fact, I have urged that there should be a Bill of Rights to protect the elderly and retired people in our community. Many people suffer mental stress worrying whether they can meet heating and

food bills, for instance. I pointed out in the House last month that many elderly people turn down their heating because they are scared that they will not be able to meet their bills. They worry about ill health and what will happen to them when they become ill.
Not only the elderly, but all retired men and women worry about whether they have made enough provision for old age. Retirement should not be the beginning of the deterioration of life but a period when people should be able to relax and enjoy life, having spent their lives working and contributing to the country. It is essential that the quality of life be maintained, and every support should be provided by the Government to enable people to do so in their own homes, in residential homes or in hospitals.
I note what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), said about cuts—sometimes savage cuts—in hospital social services. There is not time to mention all of them, but I refer again to hospitals, such as the Dundonald and Bangor hospitals where cuts have meant that beds have had to be closed and nurses dismissed.
The time may come when an invalid person must forsake his or her cherished independence and seek the support of a residential home. I am deeply concerned about the standard of some residential homes—fortunately, there are not too many such cases—and there is a need for more thorough and frequent inspections.
In my constituency is the Banks residential home. The Minister is a caring person, and he may have had that home pointed out to him. It is a beautiful building in an idyllic setting on Groomsport road, Bangor. It has a friendly atmosphere and efficient and helpful staff. I am shocked that the Eastern health authority is considering expelling the elderly residents and taking over that wonderful building for its own bureaucracy.
If officials need offices, there are plenty of places in Belfast, Dundonald and the streets of Bangor, but not in that beautiful place, which was specifically built for retired people. The bureaucrats in the Eastern health board have specially woven carpet in their entrance hall, at great expense to the taxpayer. I appeal to the Minister to use his influence to make sure that those bureaucrats do not close the beautiful Banks home.
The board has offered the lame excuse that there has been a rapid expansion of the voluntary and private sectors and that there is no waiting list for the Banks. I assure the Minister that that is not correct. I know many people who are waiting for a place at the Banks, but they are turned away because the bureaucracy do not want to provide them with beds. If people are in that home, it will be more difficult for the bureaucracy to close the building and take it over for its own purposes.
The board also claims that it is under pressure to switch resources from residential care to domiciliary care—in other words, it is blaming the Government. It is high time that the onus was placed on the Eastern health board.
I now refer to a case involving one of my constituents. She is 94, it is not long since her husband died, and she is now living alone in a large house. On the evening of Monday 20 January, she became very ill. She called her doctor, who was worried when he examined her. She had a temperature and a bad chest cough. Naturally, as the patient was a woman of 94 years, he was anxious about her health. Therefore, the doctor called an ambulance at 11.15 pm to take her to hospital, where he thought that tests


could be carried out and she could stay for a period of observation. He gave the ambulancemen a letter in which he set out her medical condition.
At about I am the following morning, that elderly lady was told by the hospital medical staff that she was being sent home. The old lady, who has an agile mind, pointed out that there was no one at home and the fire would be out. She was agitated, but none the less she was turfed out of the hospital. She was brought home by ambulance and left in her empty house at 1.20 am. That is a disgraceful experience for a person of any age, but for an old lady of 94 years it is absolutely disgusting.
Not surprisingly, the lady's doctor was amazed. I am still amazed at the callous treatment that was meted out to her. I wonder how many other elderly patients have suffered in the same shocking way. It is possible that the duty officer decided that she was not in need of hospital care or medical observation, despite her doctor's comments and his anxiety, but how could anyone send a woman of that age who lived alone back to her home in the early hours of the morning? The reason could not have been a shortage of beds in the Ulster hospital: there are plenty of beds. The only trouble is that the Eastern health board has closed them. Surely a spare bed could have been found for her.
The reason may have been a shortage of nursing staff, as the board now employs fewer nurses—to the detriment of my constituents who are in need of nursing attention. I am deeply disturbed by that disgraceful position. I represent the area of North Down, which has an ever increasing number of retired people. We must protect the elderly. We must fight for them because they are vulnerable and they cannot fight for themselves. We must ensure that their dignity is not undermined and that their lives are not shortened as a result of callous and inhuman treatment.

Mr. David Trimble: It has been said that it is only through debates such as this that Northern Ireland Members can raise matters that are probably local government matters and would be handled by local government in Northern Ireland if there was any local government worth the name. It is utterly unsatisfactory that we are given only this brief opportunity of merely an hour and a half to debate the matter. As other hon. Members wish to speak and we wish to allow the Minister to reply, one must keep one's comments extremely brief and simply highlight certain main issues.
As has been said, the moratorium has been handled in a most unsatisfactory way. There has never been a proper statement in the House. Proper information has never been given to the House. Written questions were tabled by me and other hon. Members. They were not answered. I hope that at some point the Minister will get round to giving an answer. We want to know the precise effect of the moratorium and what programmes have been affected. The Minister of State claimed that the effect of the moratorium was spent and programmes were being reinstated. We want details of what has been reinstated and when. I know of one scheme—the Minister knows to what I refer—which has not been reinstated. We would like something to be done on that matter.
I suspect that, if the truth were told about the moratorium, we would find that the financial affairs of the Northern Ireland Office and the Departments of Ministers were in a mess and that Ministers were not in a position to come clean about it. That underlines the need to have a more satisfactory way of handling such matters and to have better parliamentary scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Office. That ought to be done through a Select Committee. The Public Accounts Committee tells us that, of all the Departments with which it deals, the Northern Ireland Office is the worst in terms of how it handles its money. A Select Committee would remedy the lack of scrutiny.
I must raise one important issue—that is all that I can do in the short time available—concerning the United Meat Packers plant at Annsborough, near Lurgan in my constituency. As the Minister will know, a receiver has been appointed for the plant, with the consequence that farmers who supplied carcases to it are not being paid and are having to prove that they are unsecured creditors. They find the comparison between treatment of that plant—it is owned by the Halal group—and the group's four other plants, one in the Republic of Ireland and three in Great Britain, extremely distressing. The three plants in Great Britain were wound down and closed in a relatively orderly fashion and farmers there were paid in full. The plant in the Irish Republic is being administered by the court, under its equivalent of the "Chapter XI" proceedings, and farmers are also being paid in full there.
I am told by the Department of Agriculture that the plant in Northern Ireland was one of the best-equipped plants and was a profitable undertaking, but the Northern Ireland farmers who supplied it are not being paid. It appears that the financial liabilities of the firm have been cast upon a profitable element and that other elements, which were not so profitable, seem to have got away.
I appreciate that the Minister's actions are limited because of receivership. Will he find out whether there is some way to inquire into the financial affairs of the group, not merely at the plant in Lurgan but at other plants that it operates, and into the connections between plants and other overseas bodies which I believe were involved with it? At the moment we do not have a lot of information, but one gets the feeling that there is more to this story than meets the eye. It is an appropriate case for a thorough inquiry.
That was the major item that I wished to mention, but I cannot forbear commenting on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—the Fair Employment Commission's proposals to publish the religious breakdown of 1,700 firms within Northern Ireland. Only a couple of weeks ago we met the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), and forcefully expressed to him our reservations about that course of action. We were told at that stage that, although the Fair Employment Commission proposed to publish that detail, the Secretary of State was considering the timing and content.
After that meeting, I felt that there was some conflict between what the Minister and the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission—who was also present—was saying, and I wrote to the Minister. I received a reply on Thursday last week, which, while somewhat opaque, left one with the impression that he was still seriously considering what was to be done about publication.
I appreciate that time is short, but I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will state exactly the


Government's position on the matter and what will be done. I endorse completely all the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East about the consequence of that publication.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Time is short and the Minister will want to reply, so I shall be brief. I back up what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has just said about the fair employment issue. It is not right for the House to think that there have been no repercussions from other publications.
A frantic employer phoned me no less than seven days ago. His firm had been named before and his deputy managing director's car was shot up by a gunman in the factory yard because of the lady's religious persuasion. That man employs a large number of people and he told me, "I have now to decide whether I will close this entire undertaking and go back to where I came from." So it is wrong to say that there are not legitimate fears.
I also met Mr. Cooper with my colleagues and with two representatives of small firms, who said that there is a great difference between pinpointing the religious breakdown of a firm with 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 employees and that with only 25. There is great fear. I will hold the Fair Employment Agency responsible if those firms are picked out by gunmen, on either side of the divide, for intimidation or killings. The House should take note of that great fear.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that other reports on the religious persuasion of the work force in the banks have dealt with the total work force employed, rather than with the make-up of employees in specific branches? It is important to acknowledge that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, that point must be stressed.
If the Minister is unable to reply to me tonight, I hope that he can write to me about the progress reached on the local hospital in which I am interested. I know that an announcement has been made about money, but I should like to know about the timetable for progress. The Conservative candidate in my constituency announced that the brickwork for that hospital had been completed, but it has not even been started. Such is the honesty we are up against.
A deputation has been to see the Minister about the River Bush and we would like to hear what he has to say about it.
The Government must do something about the community workshops, which inspire a united front. The people served by those workshops must be treated properly.
I back up what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said about United Meat Packers. Is it the Government's policy to withhold their grants in respect of that firm? If the company changes hands and becomes viable, I trust that that money will not be taken by the present receiver to pay the debts to the banks. I hope that that money will be used to repay the debts to the farming community. In my constituency, a young man, not long in business but doing well, was owed £18,000 by that firm. His cheque from it bounced and that young man suffered a complete nervous breakdown. That firm has left a trail of sorrow.
I must not say any more, because other colleagues want to speak.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I want to discuss Department of the Environment vote 1, which relates to the moneys spent on roads and certain associated services.
Many of my constituents on the Shore road at Green island are concerned about the proposed realignment of route A2. They consider that proposal even more objectionable than earlier ones, which were subsequently abandoned. The DOE officials seem to be judge and jury on their case. It is felt strongly that a process of attrition is being conducted by the visiting officials to wear down the objectors to the scheme proposed. Those officials have tried to buy off or negotiate away legitimate objections to the development.
Many of the 130 frontagers would have objected in writing, but as a result of contacts with others they have decided that that is pointless. It is disappointing that consultation should come to that and that those who believe that they have valid objections should give up rather than pursue them through appropriate procedures.
Has Government approval been given for the scheme? Is it not possible to hold a public inquiry? Is the Minister satisfied that the scheme is not flawed on social or environmental grounds and that his officials are not ignoring DOE legislation? Will the Department vest the land and buildings to enable the project to commence? If so, when will that happen, and when is work likely to start?
Various questions arise in relation to road work throughout Northern Ireland. For example, is the Minister aware that there is no regulation in force in Northern Ireland on noise insulation? Circular 10/73 entitled "Planning and Noise" has never officially been adopted in Northern Ireland, although it is recognised as a useful planning tool by planners and local authority environmental health officers. Will the Minister promise to examine the matter with a view to having the noise insulation regulations that apply in England, Scotland and Wales being applied to Northern Ireland?
I wish that there had been time to address many other matters. I would have gone into the failure to encourage the development of nursery schools; the difficulties faced by education and library boards because of the insurance policies, or lack of them, operated by the Department when schools and libraries burn down; and the failure of the Northern Ireland tourist board to consult adequately with district councils before publicising information internationally. Because time is short, however, I will resume my seat to enable other hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Roger Stott: Time is not on our side tonight, so in deference to the Minister, who I know wishes to reply to the debate, I shall keep my remarks as short as possible. The House will have an opportunity on Thursday to debate the political future of, and security situation in, Northern Ireland, but the appropriation Orders that come before hon. Members from time to time raise the real bread-and-butter issues that concern the elected representatives of the Province. It is therefore only right that they should have the opportunity to explain to the Minister their difficulties and the problems facing their constituents. I make no complaint about that. I have often complained


about the Order in Council procedure, but it is not for us tonight to take up the time available to hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies.
I have a few matters to flag up to the Under-Secretary, who I appreciate is not responsible for education in the Province. The Minister of State was formerly responsible for education there and was responsible for introducing the relevant education instrument. I am pleased to see him in his place, because the only item in that instrument with which I agreed resulted from his dedicated work on behalf of the Province's integrated schools. I reinforce that view tonight, for he did remarkably well in helping the growth of integrated education in Northern Ireland.
Like other hon. Members, last week I had a meeting with the chief executive, Fiona Stevens, and chairperson, Fiona Stelfox, of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education and we discussed the whole issue of integrated education in the Province. I will not tonight go into that in detail, but having listened carefully to the Minister's opening remarks about the financial allocation to the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, I was suprised that the hon. Gentleman did not once mention nursery education.
The chief executive and the chairperson of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education are extremely worried because their nursery schools, which are attached to the existing integrated schools in Portadown, Dungannon, Omagh, Larne, Portrush, Ballymena and Belfast, are feeder integrated nursery schools for four and five-year-olds who are at a crucial stage in their education development.
It must be remembered that we are talking about Northern Ireland. The two people who came to see me last week told me that, if funds are not forthcoming, all those nursery schools, which deal with a crucial stage of children's educational development and are attached to Northern Ireland integrated schools, will have to close in June this year. There appear to be no such funds in the appropriations that we are discussing this evening.
I realise that the Under-Secretary of State is not directly responsible for education in Northern Ireland, but something should be done, in the brief period in which the Government are the custodians in Northern Ireland before we take over, to assure the integrated schools movement that nursery provision is protected. Although nursery provision in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is woeful beyond belief, it is embryonic in Northern Ireland and we should ensure that it survives.
I should have liked to say an awful lot more tonight, but the best speeches always fall on the cutting room floor. In deference to the Under-Secretary of State who will answer the debate, I shall leave him the remainder of the time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) for his kind generosity, which is typical of the courtesy that is extended on these occasions. I also thank all those who have participated in this debate for the measured way in which they have expressed matters of grave concern to them and their constituents. These debates are among the best that

we have and are a model for debates in the House of Commons. They rarely sink to the level of some of the parliamentary procedures that we experience.
I exclude the opening speech by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who had a good old go at the Government about the economy in Northern Ireland. In his visits to the Province, he must have ignored the health of Harland and Woolf and Short's. He said that the Government had denuded manufacturing industries of investment, but in the past three years output in production has risen by 6 per cent. and in manufacturing industry it has risen by 7 per cent., which is even better than in Britain. So the hon. Gentleman's target is completely wrong.

Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot deal with the points that he and others raise in interventions.

Mr. Trimble: May I draw attention to the recent survey of manufacturing firms, which shows that employment is likely to fall by 2 per cent. in the current year?

Mr. Hanley: A number of reports have been published recently. I was simply explaining that, over the past three years, Northern Ireland's economy has been extremely healthy, and that we shall continue to do all that we can to ensure that that record continues.
Naturally we do not wish to impose a moratorium on the Province, but when one is managing a block of some £6·5 billion, resources inevitably need to be reallocated from time to time in line with new requirements and block priorities. During the year, we found increases beyond what we had expected in valuable areas. For instance, in education, there were higher numbers and costs of mandatory student awards and the increased cost of the youth training programme. In health, requirements under family health services increased. Those included general medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services. Increases also arose from the review body for pay awards. In addition, the need for cover for security costs increased. All those items needed to be adjusted during the year.
The total amount that has been secured from that is only £30 million to £33 million net, so we have had good value. The impact on particular projects may seem severe to those who had expected them to be completed by now, but I am sure that they will be resuscitated within schemes as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South mentioned the moratorium on the Housing Executive. The amount of income to the executive from all sources has been reduced in total by the swingeing sum of 0·1 per cent. The only impact has been a delay in the starting dates of some of the schemes by two or three months.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who is always wise and thoughtful, raised the subject of hospices, which are dear to my heart. I am sure that he knows that Her Majesty the Queen visited the Northern Ireland hospice last year. In Northern Ireland, there is already almost 50 per cent. funding of hospices, and the extra money that has been granted in England in the past few days was designed to try to give hospices here the high standard of support of those in Northern Ireland. We have a good record on hospices, and shall try to continue that—it is one of my priorities.
With regard to the Poswillo report into dental anaesthesia, there is four times the level of anaesthesia in dentistry in Northern Ireland than in England. It is therefore a serious matter which will be addressed, but at present there is no specific allocation of funding.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) mentioned a number of matters. I shall not be able to cover all the points. However, I assure all hon. Members that the appropriate Minister will write to them in the near future.
In relation to community workshops, the current youth training programme rates in Northern Ireland compare favourably with those elsewhere. Following representations made recently by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and representatives of the Northern Ireland Association of Community Based Training Organisations, the Government have agreed to extend assistance to the payment of redundancies and arrangements for advanced funding for a further period. Those concessions should help the community workshops to continue their important work.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will report to the House in the near future on the matter of prisons, which was raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) also mentioned the moratorium, and I believe that I have addressed that issue. He also spoke of care in the community. There is no relaxation in our drive for care in the community. The points that he raised were important and specific, and I will write to him on them. We are close to an announcement on waiting lists. There is a commitment in the patients charter, of which my hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke just a few days ago. We shall achieve the aim of a maximum waiting list of two years for almost all matters.
There are particular problems in relation to cardiac surgery, and we shall set a date slightly more than two years ahead to clear the backlog. But when the hon. Member for South Down says that, if a patient does not undergo an operation, that patient will die, I can assure him that clinical need is paramount. There will be no

shortage of operations for those registered as needing those operations now. Such operations now take place throughout the United Kingdom—the world is becoming a much smaller place in terms of heart operations. I am pleased that we shall be able to reduce that backlog. I hope that, within a time scale to be published within a few days, we shall be able to reduce such waiting lists to the two-year limit.
No one has espoused the cause of the elderly more assiduously and eloquently than the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), and I will certainly write to him about his 94-year-old constituent.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) also mentioned the moratorium and the case of United Meat Packers, as did the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley. I am concerned about the issue. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North knows—although, if I were a betting man, I would not admit it in his presence—I would bet that everyone will be paid. However, that is a matter for the receiver. We in the Department of Agriculture are trying to help to find a buyer as it is a good plant and, unlike some of the other plants mentioned by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, it is a going concern. There is a secure future for its suppliers, employees and customers, and we must ensure that we obtain exactly the right deal. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's show of concern today.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned Causeway hospital. I think that it will be taking patients before the end of the century—before the end of the decade. We hope to buy the land soon. Bricks and mortar will follow the purchase—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

PETITIONS

Cold Weather Payments (West Yorkshire)

Mr. Bob Cryer: I have great pleasure in presenting this petition which is from the whole of the Bradford metropolitan district and contains signatures from that district. It concentrates on my part of the constituency, the wards of Wyke, Wibsey, Tong, Great Horton, Queensbury and Odsal.
The petition concerns cold weather payments and the criteria which the Government have imposed and which result in great difficulties for pensioners. They are left cold and confused and without adequate and easy means of obtaining payment for the cold weather to provide enough heating.
The petition has been organised by Age Concern and is supported by Labour-controlled Bradford council. Councillors have also expressed their concern about the district being covered by different weather centres, and payments being triggered only when seven freezing days are predicted. That criterion leaves many pensioners cold and vulnerable to hypothermia.
The petition is signed by a good friend of mine, Alice Brown, and reads as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of concerned citizens of Bradford, Bingley, Ilkley, Keighley and Shipley in the County of West Yorkshire. Sheweth that great distress is being suffered by the elderly inhabitants of our area during winter months; in particular those two-thirds of our elderly population who are entirely dependent on state benefits and who through poverty cannot afford to keep themselves warm, and for whom the current means of relief such as the Cold Weather Payment scheme are both confusing and inadequate.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Members of your Honourable House urge Ministers: (a) to carry out an urgent review of all those current means of relief given to the elderly to help with heating costs during winter months, in particular to the cold weather payment scheme.
(b) to consider and implement new proposals which will ensure that no elderly person need suffer from the cold through poverty.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
I hope that the Government will do this before the election.

To lie upon the Table.

Education (Rochdale)

Mr. Jim Callaghan: I wish to present a petition signed by more than 12,000 electors in the Rochdale borough, many of them constituents who are worried about the underfunding of the education

service in the borough. The petition was organised by 60 head teachers who represent all 107 schools in the borough. They asked me to present the petition to the House, which I now proceed to do:
The humble petition of the people in Rochdale, showeth: that we the undersigned express our grave concern at the serious underfunding of the education service and the effects further cuts to the service will have on our children's education. Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that our children's education is fully and adequately funded. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Crime (New Cumnock)

Mr. George Foulkes: It is my privilege to complete the worthy trio of petitions today with a petition from the citizens of New Cumnock—from 2,176 adults, representing almost the whole adult community in the town. It is one of the small but important towns in my constituency, led by former Councillor Willie Goudy, Mrs. Mary Morrison, John McWhirter and other members of an action group formed by the community following a meeting of 400 residents in New Cumnock concerned about the unacceptable level of crime and intimidation in the town. The petition is to the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled:
The Humble Petition of the Citizens of New Cumnock sheweth That there is an unacceptable level of crime and intimidiation in their community.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House shall address the issues contributing to this situation and take such measures as to allow the citizens of New Cumnock to enjoy peace of mind and security once again namely:

(i) To increase police resources in this rural area.
(ii) Review sentencing policies in order to create a real deterrent to crime.
(iii) To expedite the processing of trials.
(iv) To instruct the courts to exercise greater discretion in the granting of bail to persistent offenders.
(v) To ensure that appropriate compensation is made to victims of crime. The courts to take initial responsibility for payment of such compensation.
(vi) To promote greater responsibility by increasing parent liability for their children's misdeeds.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &amp;c.

To lie upon the Table.

Selective Investment Brokers

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Sir Charles Morrison: In almost 28 years in the House, this is only the second occasion on which I have the Adjournment debate. It will almost certainly be the last, because I shall not he here after the next election. The matter which I propose to raise is of great importance to many unfortunate people, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to air their real grievances and to call on the Government to consider now and later, action to ameliorate the condition of those people.
I emphasise that I raise the issue of Selective Investment Brokers Ltd. and the role of the Department of Trade and Industry with the complete support of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). He has taken a lead in this matter and will continue to do so, if need be after the election. I am sure that he will be supported by other hon. Members who have written to me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North cannot be here because of his duties in Northern Ireland.
I have spoken to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), who says that in his view it is highly likely that the Committee will wish to look at the ombudsman's report on the case after the general election.
In early February, Anthony Wheeler, former mayor of Chippenham and formerly a respected local citizen, was convicted and sentenced to four years in gaol for fraudulent trading between 1986 and 1988. He was also convicted of the theft of money belonging to Selective Investment Brokers Ltd. and of procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception.
Selective Investment Brokers Ltd. was set up in 1980 in Chippenham. Among the financial investment products that it offered was a tax-free investment in what was described as the Cotswold Trust. The trust gave all the appearance of being similar in every respect to a unit trust whereby the investors invested their money with the trustees who had absolute discretion to determine which investments would form the basis of the underlying trust fund. Investors, who consisted mostly, but not entirely, of local people, were advised to spread their risk by investing part of their disposable capital in well-known, authorised products, but including a proportion in the Cotswold Trust.
Before the passing of the Financial Services Act 1986, the operator was not a licensed dealer in securities, nor was he a member of any authorised body. After the passing of the Act, the operator became a tied representative for an authorised investment institution. The Cotswold Trust was an unauthorised investment product in any event and not one which could be lawfully marketed.
Since 1984, SIBL had been in receipt of statutory correspondence from Companies house regarding its failure to provide annual returns and accounts. On at least two occasions, Companies house had indicated its intention to exercise its powers to remove the company's name from the list of companies as it appeared that the

company had ceased trading. In 1985, Companies house had passed this information to the Inland Revenue. On all occasions, the company's auditors had replied to Companies house, stating that they were still trading and would supply the relevant returns and accounts in due course.
In November 1985, the company became the subject of an investigation by the special investigation department of the Inland Revenue, which concentrated specifically on the tax-free status of the products that the company was offering. The Inland Revenue served the company with an assessment of unpaid tax and demanded that immediate steps be taken to pay the unpaid amounts assessed while the Revenue carried out a full evaluation of the total figure.
In December 1986, an independent accountant preparing an account for a client contacted the Department of Trade and Industry to identify the trading status of the operator of the Cotswold Trust. His concern related to whether his client's investment in the trust was tax-free and whether the investment itself was authorised. His information was examined, and as a result it became clear that the DTI believed that an investigation of the affairs of SIBL was urgently warranted.
The DTI took no action, but invited the accountant to report his concerns to the Wiltshire police. The accountant wrote to the DTI again, expressing his surprise and concern at its apparent lack of interest and was yet again urged to report his concerns to the police. In April 1987, the informant went to the police.
In May 1987, the police found that they could undertake no immediate investigation into the company, as at the time they had no information that would constitute sufficient prima facie evidence that a criminal offence was being committed. They referred the matter back to the DTI, with the request that the Department undertake an urgent investigation using its powers under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985. The DTI, however, took no further action in the case.
The company continued to solicit investment in the Cotswold Trust and, throughout the remaining period, accumulated in more than half a million pounds in new investments. In June 1988, the Inland Revenue presented its final accounting for unpaid revenue to SIBL, which resulted in the company's placing itself in voluntary liquidation, leaving investors with a loss of £1·3 million.
Those facts were subsequently reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who conducted an inquiry into an allegation of maladministration on the part of the DTI on the grounds of its having failed to take any action in May 1987, when it knew—or ought to have known—that the responsibility for investigating the company lay with it. Subsequently, however—in 1991—the ombudsman exonerated the DTI of maladministration, which occasioned amazement and disbelief.
Indeed, the ombudsman's findings were considered to be so transparently at odds with the facts of the case, and the precedents created by previous ombudsman's decisions, that the report was referred by the company's creditors—who had formed a group called Creditors in Action—to an independent QC, who conducted a full examination of both facts of the case and the ombudsman's investigation. He found that the


Ombudsman had erred in his findings and that the DTI's failure to act constituted maladministration of a most serious kind.
The case reveals a number of factors, adding up to a degree of inevitability that the investors would lose their money. It is, however, not simply the latest example of a series of cases in which the DTI has been shown to have failed to evince the most basic understanding of the meaning of investor protection, clearly illustrating the way in which regulatory incompetence leads to loss. What is perhaps most clearly identified—along with the degree of incompetence and maladministration displayed by the DTI in its failure to appreciate the urgency of the need to investigate the affairs of SIBL—is the obvious extent of its complicity in an unauthorised and unhealthy relationship with the Inland Revenue. That enabled the Revenue to collect moneys to which it would not have been lawfully entitled had the proper course been taken at the right time.
The DTI was aware that the company had not made any financial returns to Companies House for a number of years yet was continuing to trade. It was aware that the company was not authorised to conduct investment business and that it was dealing in investment products of an unauthorised nature. It was aware of the previous relationship between the operator of SIBL and another investment adviser who had been investigated in regard to a similar operation which had led to investor losses. It was conscious of the need to undertake investigations into SIBL as a matter of urgency, because that fact had been identified by a member of the companies investigation branch. It was conscious of the fact that investors' money was at risk.
The question that must be asked is, why did the DTI fail to take any action at the appropriate time? Also, why did the ombudsman lean over backwards to ensure that no findings of maladministration were proved against the DTI? It would appear that the explanation can be found in the relationship between the DTI and the Inland Revenue.
It is clear that SIBL owed the Inland Revenue a considerable sum in unpaid tax. If any action had been commenced to wind up the company, the Inland Revenue would have been unable to recover any of that money and would merely have been included on the list of non-secured creditors who would have remained unpaid. The only sums for which the Inland Revenue can claim to have a preferential interest are moneys collected by the employer for pay-as-you-earn and national insurance contributions. Therefore, stopping the company trading would have meant that the Inland Revenue would have lost a great deal of unpaid money.
However, permitting the company to continue to trade meant that the Inland Revenue could continue to receive moneys by way of assessment, moneys that it would not otherwise have been entitled to receive had the company been wound up—in other words, the Inland Revenue was enabled to be preferred directly at the expense of new investors in the company.
Had the ombudsman found that the failure of the DTI to act decisively in May 1986—when it knew or should have known that it alone possessed the power to conduct the necessary investigation into SIBL—amounted to maladministration, the legitimacy of the actions of the Inland Revenue would undoubtedly have been called into

question. If the practice of allowing the Revenue to collect unpaid but non-preferential taxes from companies that would otherwise be wound up had become widely known, a number of similar cases would undoubtedly have been uncovered, leading to questions being asked about the amount by which the Revenue has benefited at the expense of other creditors.
This case is an unattractive story which reflects badly on the DTI and the Inland Revenue. The DTI is a regulatory body, "regulatory"—I emphasise that word—on behalf of the public. On this occasion, the public were severely let down. The creditors of SIBL want the DTI to admit that it made a mistake and that investors suffered as a result. In consequence, the DTI should take action to put that right, and I hope that the Minister will make a start on that now.

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) referred to the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the actions of the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to Selective Investment Brokers Ltd. I shall try to draw a distinction between the actions that could be taken by Companies house—striking off a company that is no longer active—and the actions that can be taken by the police or the investigatory authorities if there is suspicion of wrongdoing. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) present in the Chamber. I know that he takes a great interest in this matter, which has affected some of his constituents.
I am naturally distressed to hear of the losses sustained by investors in the company. It was incorporated in January 1980 and went into liquidation in July 1988. The Parliamentary Commissioner criticised the actions of Companies house in failing to pursue SIBL for overdue accounts and for initiating action to strike off the company instead, but he did not find that that failure led to injustice or loss to the company's investors. Companies house accepts the criticism that it failed to pursue the directors of the company as it should have done, and I apologise to my hon. Friends and to the House on its behalf for that mistake.
The Parliamentary Commissioner also concluded that potential investors could have searched the records held by Companies house and obtained a warning from the lack of up-to-date information. Companies house records exist to protect members of the public who intend to deal with limited companies, and those services should be used. The fact that a company has not filed accounts or is late in doing so should act as a warning to people thinking of trading or dealing with it.
The Inland Revenue and other creditors can seek to prevent an active company from being struck off in error. An intention to strike off a company must be published in the London Gazette, and it would be open to the Inland Revenue or any other creditor to petition to avoid such an error being made.
Since the criticism by the Public Accounts Committee of the low level of compliance in 1984, Companies house has made great progress in raising the level of compliance with the filing requirements of the Act. The target set for Companies house is to achieve 85 per cent. compliance by the end of June 1992. This target is still less than I would


like, and I have told Companies house that raising compliance is the highest priority. Its efforts have met with considerable success. It sends out more than 2 million default letters and prosecutes a considerable number of directors each year. It is striving continually to improve the level of compliance still further. It has improved its computer systems, introduced road shows throughout the country, advertised nationally, and produced a publicity video which is widely available. July will see the implementation of late filing penalties. These will apply to any company which delivers its accounts to the registrar after the statutory period has expired. I hope to see a further increase in compliance as a result of these measures.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Parliamentary Commissioner found no evidence of maladministration in the actions of my Department's financial services division or of companies' investigation branch in relation to this case. When the matter was first drawn to the attention of the companies' investigation branch, my officials established that the Wiltshire police were undertaking investigations into associated business concerns. The police told my officials that they wished to extend their inquiries to Selective Investment Brokers. It was accordingly suggested that the complainant should contact the police with the complaint. This was eventually done, and my Department decided not to undertake an investigation under either the Companies Act or the Financial Services Act.
That decision was entirely in accordance with my Department's long standing and sensible policy not to duplicate police inquiries into a company. Such duplication would be wasteful of investigative resources and might prejudice possible police action. However, my Department will always consider whether to use its investigatory powers if requested to do so by the police or by the prosecuting authorities looking into the case.
Thereafter, as is stated in the Parliamentary Commissioner's report, the police said to my officials that the client of the firm of actuaries who had contacted my Department had declined to make a formal complaint. The police officer concerned told my Department that he would he reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He said that he would be suggesting in that report that the Director should request my Department to undertake a confidential investigation under section 447 of the Companies Act, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
The Director, having considered the matter, decided

that the police report should not be passed to my Department. I understand that he was satisfied that the police had been unable to find any additional evidence which would add weight to the material which the complainant had passed to my Department. My Department took no further action.
The Parliamentary Commissioner weighed whether the DTI should have ordered a further inquiry at this point. He concluded:
I do not consider that DTI acted maladministratively in waiting on the DPP or, in the absence of further approaches about SIBL from members of the public, in not having initiated a section 447 enquiry into SIBL before its liquidation.
The ombudsman is an independent figure who is empowered to look into these matters and to have a judgment independent of Ministers. His report speaks for itself.
Following the liquidation, it became apparent that much was wrong with SIBL and a further police investigation ensued. That resulted on 7 February in Mr. Anthony Wheeler, the principal director of the company, being sentenced to four years' imprisonment on counts of fraudulent trading, theft and breaches of the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act 1958.
About 180 companies will be investigated under section 447 this year. The Department is not shy to use the section when it is the right means of investigating and when police inquiries are not already under way. In the first three quarters of this financial year, to 31 December 1991, 14 companies were wound up by the court on the petition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State following investigations under the section. There were also 19 prosecutions. Additionally, a great deal of valuable information obtained through the use of these powers was made available through the statutory gateways to other regulators to assist them in the exercise of their functions. I am determined that Department of Trade and Industry and other regulatory powers should be used to expose fraud and malpractice wherever it is suspected. I have today met City regulators to discuss with them how they can improve their chances of detecting it earlier.
I am extremely sorry about the losses that my hon.
Friend's constituents have incurred, but I rest on the ombudsman's report.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve o'clock.